The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, heard a batch of pleas concerning FIRs registered in connection with protests held across the country in July 2026.

Solicitor General appeared for the State, while Senior Advocates Vrinda Grover and Hariharan made submissions for the protesters. The hearing focused on the scope of the Court’s proposed directions to bring an end to FIRs arising from the protests and the safeguards to be provided to those who participated peacefully.

The Court was told that the Government had given an assurance that the FIRs relating to the specified protest incidents would not be pursued and that no fresh FIRs would be registered in respect of the same incidents. The Solicitor General also assured the Court that the Government stood by its commitment on compensation, with the modalities for implementation to be worked out in consultation with the States and other stakeholders.

The Bench made it clear that participation in a protest, by itself, would not constitute an offence, while preserving the State’s right to proceed against persons allegedly involved in bodily harm or destruction of property. The Court also clarified that its directions would not prejudice the pending constitutional challenge concerning the use of facial recognition technology.

Also Read ‘We Have No Reason to Doubt that Everybody Will Act & Behave in A Very Responsible Manner: SC On Proposed CJP March on Sept 5

During the hearing, Hariharan sought transparency regarding the FIRs and the list of around 2,873 persons identified by the authorities. The Court discussed whether copies of the FIRs and the relevant list should be furnished, while noting that the quashing of the FIRs would render their contents largely academic for the purpose of those proceedings.

The Court ultimately framed its directions to protect the rights of those who participated in the protests while carving out an exception for persons allegedly involved in serious offences such as violence or destruction of property. It also recorded the Government’s commitments regarding compensation for affected families and directed that a framework be formulated in consultation with the States and Union Territories.

Following the Court’s order and the Government’s assurances, Saurav Dass informed the Bench that the call for a September 5 march would be withdrawn, expressing confidence in compliance with the directions. He also called the Order as ‘historic decision’.