INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 3rd SEP 2026

Summary of Important News Items Editorials-450

INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 3rd SEP 2026.

(for reading Indian Express News items from 1 to 449 please visit –

web.prernaforias.com)

1. Editorial: Quashing Student FIRs Is Welcome, but Justice Cannot Be Selective

The Indian Express editorial welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision to quash FIRs against students involved in the Jantar Mantar protests over the NEET paper leak, viewing peaceful protest as part of constitutionally protected speech and expression. However, it raises an important question: why should similar relief not extend to other protesters who faced disproportionate criminalisation? The editorial contrasts the student cases with the April Noida workers’ protests, where nearly 200 people were detained, some for weeks, and two faced the stringent National Security Act. Courts subsequently granted relief in a large majority of those cases because of weak or non-specific evidence. Cases arising from anti-CAA protests and farmers’ movements have also continued for years. The newspaper’s stand is therefore that withdrawal of the student cases is correct, but constitutional rights cannot depend on political convenience. The gist is that democratic dissent requires consistent protection: peaceful protesters should not face criminal proceedings that effectively turn legal process itself into punishment.

2. Allahabad High Court Quashes NSA Detention of Noida Protester

The Allahabad High Court quashed the detention of 25-year-old Delhi University graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act in connection with the April Noida workers’ protest, describing the detention case as arbitrary and vague. Chaudhary had been taken into custody on April 11 and placed under NSA detention on May 13. The state alleged that she belonged to an ideological group planning violent mobilisation and linked meetings at a workers’ library to a wider conspiracy. Her lawyers argued that the gathering concerned the inauguration of a library for workers’ children and that ideological association could not by itself justify preventive detention. The Court reportedly imposed a ₹5-lakh cost on the state, with indications that responsibility could extend to officials who sanctioned the detention. Chaudhary remains named in several ordinary criminal cases. The gist is that preventive detention is an exceptional power and must rest on specific, credible evidence; political belief, association or participation in protest cannot substitute for proof of threats to public security.