4 States Urge Supreme Court To Quash FIRs Over Student Protests; Cite Centre's Commitment To CJP - Live Law

**Four States Petition Supreme Court to Dismiss FIRs Against Student Protesters, Pointing to Centre’s Assurance to the Chief Justice**

New Delhi – A coalition of four state governments — Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan — has filed a joint petition before the Supreme Court asking the apex court to quash the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against students who participated in recent anti‑NEET and broader education‑policy protests. The states argue that the central government has already conveyed to Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud a “firm commitment” to withdraw all criminal cases arising from the demonstrations, a pledge that, they say, makes the continuation of the FIRs legally untenable and contrary to the spirit of cooperative federalism. The petition, submitted on behalf of the respective state law ministries, urges the Court to invoke its powers under Article 32 to strike down the FIRs on grounds of abuse of process and violation of the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by the Constitution.

The move comes amid a flurry of parallel legal interventions. On September 3, the Centre itself moved the Supreme Court seeking the same relief, contending that the FIRs were filed without sufficient evidence of criminal intent and were primarily intended to intimidate dissent. In a related development, the Chief Justice had earlier called off a nationwide march scheduled for September 5 after the government’s overtures, signalling a tacit de‑escalation of the standoff between the judiciary and activist groups. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the Delhi Police’s plea to quash the FIRs on September 10, a hearing that is expected to address whether the state’s discretion to file criminal complaints can be overridden by a central policy of amnesty.

Legal scholars note that the case tests the balance between federal law‑enforcement autonomy and the central government’s policy prerogatives. “If the Supreme Court upholds the Centre’s request, it could set a precedent that political considerations may override procedural safeguards in criminal investigations,” said Prof. Ananya Rao of the National Law School, Bengaluru. Conversely, the states’ petition underscores the principle that law‑making and law‑enforcement are concurrent responsibilities of state governments, and any unilateral dismissal of FIRs could erode their jurisdiction. Observers will watch the outcome closely, as it may shape the legal landscape for future student movements and the broader discourse on the right to protest in India.