Petitioner Urges Supreme Court Not to Allow States to Withdraw Criminal Cases Against Student Protesters Over Paper Leak Agitations

The Supreme Court of India on August 5, 2026, heard arguments from a petitioner who urged the Court not to permit the Union Government and State Governments to withdraw criminal cases registered against student protesters involved in recent agitations over examination paper leaks. The case, Maneesh Kumar Solanki v Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 958/2026, was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana.

Advocate Rizwan Ahmed, appearing for petitioner Maneesh Kumar Solanki through Advocate on Record Pulkit Agarwal, argued that allowing the government to concede to demands for withdrawing rioting cases would set a dangerous precedent. The petition seeks directions restraining the Union Government and States from withdrawing such cases solely on the basis of any political understanding.

Background: Nationwide Student Protests Over Paper Leaks

The case arises in the context of nationwide student demonstrations that began in June 2026 following repeated examination paper leaks, particularly concerning the NEET-UG 2026 examination. The protests intensified significantly after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the movement on a prolonged hunger strike, drawing wider public attention to the students' grievances. The agitation reached a critical point on July 20, 2026, when police used batons, tear gas, and pellet guns to disperse protesters who were marching towards Parliament, raising serious concerns about the use of disproportionate force against unarmed demonstrators.

In a related development, the Supreme Court had earlier issued notice on NEET protest violence, ordering the release of detained minors and staying coercive action against peaceful protesters. Separately, a petition has been filed seeking a nationwide ban on pellet guns for crowd control in the wake of injuries sustained during the crackdown. The political fallout from the examination malpractice crisis also led to the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, while Parliament moved to pass the Public Examinations Amendment Bill 2026 introducing stricter penalties for exam malpractice.

The August 3 Order

On August 3, 2026, the Supreme Court clarified that the NCT of Delhi and State Governments were at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs registered against candidates and citizens protesting the NEET-UG paper leak, except those involved in heinous offences. It is this order that the petitioner now challenges, arguing that it opens the door to blanket impunity for those who engaged in violence during the protests.

Petitioner's Arguments Against Blanket Withdrawal

Advocate Ahmed pressed the Court to consider the long-term consequences of permitting such withdrawals. Warning about future implications, he submitted: "Tomorrow, Generation Alpha, Beta, Delta will come," arguing that withdrawing cases against violent protesters would establish a template for future agitations across the country.

Ahmed made a veiled reference to what he described as the "Cockroach Janata Party" (CJP), an unregistered entity that had called for protests against Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET 2026 paper leak. He questioned the accountability of those who organised the protests, stating: "Where is the accountability of the so-called organisers? I am saying so-called organisers because it is not a registered organisation." The remark highlighted the petitioner's broader argument that the absence of any identifiable, accountable body behind the protests makes it all the more important to hold individual offenders responsible through the criminal justice system.

The petitioner's counsel emphasised that the government's willingness to concede to demands for withdrawing cases would set a dangerous precedent. He pointed to a law and order incident in Rajasthan where a young man died during the protests, arguing that such consequences cannot be overlooked in a rush toward political reconciliation. Ahmed drew comparisons to other protest movements, cautioning: "Farmers were at the Shambhu border. Tomorrow, people from Shaheen Bagh will come to the Parliament. If 500 people would have entered the Parliament, who knows they were not carrying a country-made gun or a country-made bomb?" These remarks underscored the petitioner's concern that unchecked withdrawal of cases could embolden increasingly aggressive forms of protest.

CJI Emphasises Counselling and Restraint

Chief Justice Surya Kant adopted a more measured tone, emphasising the need for a balanced approach when dealing with young protesters. The CJI observed: "These are youngsters. They need a lot of advisory consulting. Any aggression coming from the other side in the name of the mighty state may also unnecessarily aggravate the situation and precipitate to leading to further violence. That needs to be avoided."

The CJI further stressed the importance of restraint by law enforcement, stating: "The police need to exercise a great deal of restraint to ensure that the situation does not go out of hand if some incident takes place. We need to tread very carefully so that the youngsters don't indulge in violence. The better course is to counsel them and pacify them that the most powerful source is listening."

These observations signal the Court's awareness that a purely punitive approach could prove counterproductive, particularly when the underlying grievances of students, namely systemic failures in examination integrity, remain legitimate and widespread. The CJI's remarks suggest a judicial preference for de-escalation over confrontation, recognising that heavy-handed state action risks inflaming tensions rather than resolving them.

Community Service Proposal for Minor Offences

Advocate Ahmed also proposed an alternative framework for addressing misconduct during the protests. He suggested that minors who indulged in abusive slogans against police personnel should be subjected to community service as a penalty, rather than facing criminal prosecution. However, he drew a clear line at more serious offences, asserting that "stone-pelters cannot be allowed to go scot free just because the government was caught on the wrong foot."

The petition also seeks directions for the identification of persons who used derogatory language against police personnel during the protests and for requiring them to perform supervised community service. This proposal attempts to strike a middle ground between blanket amnesty and disproportionate criminal prosecution. Those detained during the protests who believe their fundamental rights were violated may also consider the option to file a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission or, in cases of unlawful detention, to file a writ of habeas corpus before the appropriate High Court.

Matter Tagged With Connected Cases; Next Hearing on August 18

The bench tagged the matter with other connected cases relating to the NEET protest litigation and listed it for the next detailed hearing on August 18, 2026. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for how governments handle the withdrawal of criminal cases arising from large-scale public agitations, and for the balance between the right to protest and the maintenance of public order.

As the NEET paper leak crisis continues to reverberate through the legal and political landscape, the Supreme Court's approach in this case will likely shape the framework for addressing future conflicts between student movements and state responses. The Court's emphasis on counselling and restraint, coupled with the petitioner's insistence on accountability, highlights the tension at the heart of this ongoing legal battle. With the Supreme Court's recent clarification that an advocate of accused cannot remain present throughout police interrogation also shaping criminal procedure, the evolving jurisprudence around protest-related offences will be closely watched.