Must consider young students' future: SC says no to probe into CJP's July stir

The Supreme Court defended its earlier decision to cancel FIRs, saying young protesters' future and their families must be considered.

In Short

• Supreme Court rejects plea for free hand to Delhi Police in protest cases
• Court emphasises protecting futures of young students and families
• Bench defends use of Article 142 to cancel certain FIRs over July stri

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking directions to give the Delhi Police a free hand in dealing with protesters and order a fresh probe into the CJP-led agitation in July, emphasising that the future of young students, their parents and their families must be kept in mind while deciding cases arising from protests.

The court said it did not want young protesters to become entangled in repeated court hearings, while also clarifying that its earlier protection did not extend to hardened criminals or those accused of serious offences.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana declined to entertain a plea seeking an independent and fair investigation into the FIRs registered over the Jantar Mantar protests against the NEET paper leak. The protest had ended with Dharmendra Pradhan resigning as Union Education Minister.

"These are young students and protesters before us. We have to see their parents, we have to see they have a long life. (They should not be) entangled with court hearings etc," CJI Surya Kant said.

Responding to submissions challenging the court's earlier decision to cancel certain FIRs, the Chief Justice defended the use of Article 142 of the Constitution in the matter.

"There is no guarantee that we keep passing 100 per cent correct orders. You say we should not have invoked Article 142 and quashed FIRs. Please appreciate, these are young students. We have to see their parents, their future. We don't want them to come to court. You have not seen our order in the case of members of legislative assembly/Parliament," the bench said.

The court, however, clarified that the protection granted under its earlier orders was not meant for those alleged to be hardened criminals or accused of serious offences.

Citing Himachal Pradesh as an example, CJI Surya Kant referred to a case in which some politicians had staged a dharna and caused damage to public property. He also referred to the circumstances during the Covid pandemic while explaining the court's approach to such cases.

"But when there was Covid, people of this country were not ready to face this kind of crisis... so people reacted in a way they could react. The High Court declined to quash (the FIRs), but, we allowed, saying they are not hardened criminals," he added.

The bench said the plea was, in effect, seeking a review of the Supreme Court's earlier order quashing certain FIRs by invoking Article 142.

The petition sought directions to the Centre, the Delhi government and the Delhi Police to ensure that the investigation into the FIRs linked to the July protest at Jantar Mantar was conducted independently, fairly and in accordance with the law.

It also sought a declaration that the police, like the judiciary, exercise sovereign and independent functions within their designated sphere of authority. These functions include maintaining law and order, investigating crimes and bringing offenders to justice, the petition said.

The plea argued that just as the executive should not interfere with judicial functions, police functions in their designated domain should not be interfered with unless their actions are contrary to law or motivated by mala fide intent. It said such questions could involve the adjudication of disputed facts.

The petition sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus against the Centre, the Delhi government and the city police to ensure a fair and independent investigation into the FIRs arising from the protest.

Appearing for petitioner L Ramanathan, advocate Mathews Nedumpara questioned the maintainability of the public interest litigation and opposed judicial intervention in the absence of actual litigants. He argued that people were approaching the court as though it were their private property.

The bench, however, stood by its earlier exercise of powers under Article 142 to cancel certain FIRs, explaining that the circumstances and the nature of the accused had to be considered.

- Ends