Back
moves to quash 13 CJP FIRs, file fresh case against 2,873
In a significant development, the has approached the seeking permission to withdraw 13 registered against protesters who participated in the demonstrations called by the over the NEET-UG paper leak controversy. The police have simultaneously sought the court's nod to register a single fresh FIR targeting 2,873 individuals identified as having serious , signalling a nuanced approach aimed at separating genuine protesters from those with a history of grave offences.
The application, filed under —which empowers the to pass orders necessary for doing —was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant by on Tuesday. The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, agreed to hear the matter on .
Background of the Protests and Police Action
The CJP-led agitation, which began on and lasted 36 days, demanded the resignation of then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following the controversial NEET-UG paper leak. The protests intensified on with a ‘Sansad Chalo’ march in New Delhi and similar demonstrations in Bihar, leading to widespread allegations of police excesses. In response, law enforcement agencies across multiple states registered FIRs against participants, invoking charges ranging from rioting and attempt to murder to damage to public property.
The had earlier taken cognizance of the matter and directed the police to carefully distinguish between genuine protesters and persons with criminal backgrounds. On , the court clarified that the term "" should be limited to involvement in grave and heinous offences, setting a clear benchmark for law enforcement agencies.
The Application: and a Fresh Case
The 's filed before the apex court provides a detailed list of 13 FIRs, lodged across five police stations in the national capital—five at Parliament Street, five at Connaught Place, and one each at Kartavya Path, Barakhamba Road, and Mandir Marg. The offences under these FIRs include rioting, attempt to murder, and property damage.
In the application, the police state that they no longer wish to pursue these 13 cases, citing the Centre's decision of to accept the CJP's demands following the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan. However, they assert that a database check revealed that 2,873 persons present at the protest site have "serious ." The police propose to file a single consolidated FIR against these individuals to investigate their potential involvement in offences involving bodily harm or property damage during the agitation.
The application assures the
that no fresh FIR will cover incidents already included in the existing cases, ensuring no
.
"In view of the larger public interest and in the peculiar facts of this case, the applicant invokes the
of this honourable court under
of India, praying for
of the FIRs mentioned in the above chart,"
the application states.
Crucially, the police have requested that while the 13 FIRs, the court clarify that the order is passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a . This safeguard aims to prevent the wholesale withdrawal of similar FIRs in unrelated matters and underscores the discretionary nature of Article 142.
Legal Implications and the 's Role
The 's strategy reflects a careful balancing act between the and the need to uphold law and order. By invoking Article 142, the police seek to avoid prolonged litigation over the 13 FIRs, many of which involve against individuals who may have been exercising their under .
Legal experts note that the 's endorsement of this approach could set a significant for how law enforcement agencies handle mass protests. The court's earlier distinction between genuine protesters and serves as a guiding principle: those with a clean record may be given a clean slate, while those with a history of serious crimes remain under investigation.
The application also comes ahead of a planned CJP protest march on Teachers' Day, led by families of students who died by suicide following the NEET controversy and individuals alleging police excesses. The has already constituted a three-member committee headed by former judge Justice R Subhash Reddy to examine allegations of police excesses during the July protests, adding another layer of judicial oversight.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For legal practitioners, this case highlights the practical application of Article 142 as a tool for consolidating and rationalising criminal proceedings. The ability to quash multiple FIRs while preserving the right to investigate hardened offenders could streamline the justice process and reduce the burden on trial courts and police machinery.
However, the move also raises questions about the criteria for identifying "." The database may include individuals with a range of offences, some of which may not be directly related to the protest. The police have assured that the fresh investigation will be specifically focused on offences involving bodily harm or property damage at the protest site, but the inclusion of 2,873 names will require careful scrutiny to avoid overreach.
Defence lawyers may challenge the selective targeting of these individuals, arguing that mere presence at the protest does not automatically imply criminal participation. The 's eventual order on the police application will likely clarify the boundaries of permissible action in such composite protest scenarios.
Conclusion
The 's application marks a pragmatic shift in handling the CJP protest FIRs, balancing the need to close non-serious cases with the imperative to hold recidivist offenders accountable. As the prepares to hear the matter on 1 September, the legal community will watch closely for guidance on the use of Article 142 in mass agitations and the proper delineation of . The case underscores the evolving jurisprudence on the right to protest and the limits of state power in a democratic society.
