Supreme Court quashes FIRs against NEET protesters; CJP calls off September 5 march

Supreme Court quashes FIRs against NEET protesters

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash all first information reports (FIRs) registered against students who participated in anti-NEET paper leak protests organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) between July 20 and 25 across the country. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said the court was exercising its powers to do "complete justice" between the parties, closing all criminal proceedings against the protesters except those already named in cases involving heinous crimes.

The court observed that "participation in a protest by itself does not constitute a criminal offence," according to The Tribune. It also directed the Centre to provide compensation within three months to families of students who died by suicide following the NEET paper leak controversy. The Bench clarified that its directions were without prejudice to the pending constitutional challenge regarding the use of facial recognition technology by the police.

Noting that the direction was issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court said "the order shall not be treated as a binding precedent." However, it gave liberty to the police to proceed against 2,873 individuals having serious criminal antecedents.

CJP calls off September 5 march

In response to the court's order, the CJP called off its September 5 march from India Gate to Police Headquarters. Das, co-convener of the CJP, stated that in view of the positive statement of the Government of India and the judicial sanctity bestowed upon them, the CJP deemed it appropriate to withdraw the call for the march.

The order came at the request of the Centre and the governments of Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam, which asked the top court to invoke its special power under Article 142 to close all cases against student protesters. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Centre was committed to assurances, including withdrawal of cases, given to CJP leaders in July. Mehta had earlier told the Bench that except for 2,873 individuals with grave cases, cases against others could be quashed.

Article 142: The constitutional basis

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass a decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India. The provision gives the Supreme Court broad inherent powers.

The Hindu, in its coverage, traced the evolution of this power through several landmark judgments. In Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, P. (1963), a Constitution Bench considered whether the Supreme Court could frame a rule or issue an order under Article 142 that was inconsistent with a fundamental right. The court held that though the power under Article 142 is wide, it cannot be exercised to make an order that is plainly inconsistent with a constitutional provision.

In C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the court described Article 142 as a wide and elastic power that enables it to formulate legal doctrines where necessary to meet the ends of justice. In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991), the court took a broader view, holding that limitations or prohibitions contained in ordinary laws do not, by themselves, operate as limitations on the constitutional power under Article 142.

The same year, in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991), the Supreme Court held that its powers under Article 142, read with Articles 32 and 136, could be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case to do complete justice. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Constitution Bench described Article 142 as a plenary, supplementary and residual source of power, but also held that it is a curative power: it can supplement the law, but it cannot supplant substantive law.

More recently, in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court can, in an appropriate case, depart from procedural as well as substantive law, provided the exercise is based on fundamental considerations of general and specific public policy. In High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of P. (2024), the Constitution Bench reiterated that Article 142 must be used to do complete justice between the parties before the court and cannot be used to affect people who are not part of the case.