Back
Supreme Court Declines Urgent Hearing on CJP Police Action Plea, Says 'Don't Waste Time'
In a brief but high-stakes courtroom exchange on , the refused to urgently list a petition seeking judicial intervention into alleged police excesses against student protesters in the national capital. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant cut short the by stating, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time,” and declined to view video evidence purportedly showing brutality. The refusal echoes a similar terse denial by the a day earlier, and it raises profound questions about the judiciary’s threshold for taking of police action against peaceful assemblies and the evolving landscape of in India.
The Genesis of the Protest and an Unusual Party Name
The protests that drew the Supreme Court’s attention were organised by the (CJP), a group that emerged directly from an oral observation made by Chief Justice Surya Kant himself in . During an unrelated hearing, the Chief Justice had remarked, “There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment and don’t have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone.” The comment, which later attracted widespread public furore, was clarified by the Chief Justice as being targeted at individuals with fake law degrees, not genuine youth. Nevertheless, the students who congregated at Jantar Mantar adopted the moniker as a badge of defiance, branding their movement the .
The CJP’s “Sansad Chalo” march on July 20 sought to spotlight allegations of irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), demands for a fair and transparent examination process, dissolution of the , and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. As protesters breached police barricades near Parliament, the resorted to lathicharge, tear gas, and mass detentions. At least 80 injuries were reported, with one protester sustaining pellet injuries. Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, later marched to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s residence, where they were detained. The incident triggered an internet shutdown in the New Delhi district and a political storm.
The Judicial Response at the Highest Level
When mentioned the under before the Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, he cited video evidence and the pan-India nature of the protests to argue that the matter transcended the territorial jurisdiction of the . The Chief Justice’s response was unambiguous: “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time. Your time is more valuable than ours.” When the lawyer persisted with references to the videos, the Bench declared, “We are not interested in videos. We don’t have time to watch.”
This was not the first courtroom to shut its doors. A day earlier, Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, sitting with Justice Tejas Karia, had refused an , saying, “Don’t drag the Court into this. It will come up tomorrow.” The twin rejections underscore a growing judicial impatience with what are increasingly perceived as “ culture” excesses, yet they also reveal a critical gap in the redressal of rights violations during ongoing assemblies.
The petition, filed by , sought intervention, an independent judicial inquiry, preservation of electronic evidence, and directions consistent with the safeguards laid down in . It alleged that women protesters were manhandled, that video footage showed clear police brutality, and that over 170 injured persons had been brought to central government hospitals. Notwithstanding the gravity of the claims, the Supreme Court did not entertain even a preliminary glimpse of the evidence.
Legal Implications: Powers and the
For legal practitioners, the episode spotlights the delicate balance between and enforcement. empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or for the enforcement of any of the . – where the court takes up a matter on its own motion – has been a powerful tool in cases of custodial violence, environmental disasters, and executive overreach. However, it is rarely exercised on the basis of letter petitions alone, and the court retains complete discretion to decline listing when it deems the matter insufficiently grave or urgent.
The CJI’s instruction to not “waste time” reflects a judicial sentiment that the Supreme Court’s docket is overburdened and that lawyers must not treat the apex court as a first forum for every public grievance. Yet, the response also appears to sidestep the substantive question: when live videos surface of police action that arguably violates the D.K. Basu guidelines on arrests and detention, does the highest court owe a minimal duty to examine the material? The refusal to view the videos, rather than to hear the matter on merits, leaves the factual allegations unchallenged and unrebutted, potentially emboldening state actors and creating a on the right to protest.
Impact on and Access to Justice
The incident is being widely discussed in legal circles as a potential inflection point for PIL in India. The Supreme Court’s doors were not closed on the merits; the refusal was limited to . The , in fact, was set to hear the matter the following day. Yet the message sent from the highest judicial office – that the court has no time for video evidence and that the protestors’ cause is a “waste” of its time – carries symbolic weight. It may deter future petitioners from approaching the Supreme Court under for immediate relief, funneling such cases to High Courts where delays can be equally systemic.
Critics, including opposition leaders and the CJP itself, have framed the remarks as arrogance. CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said, “Our Supreme Court deserves better. Surya Kant ji must realise that so much arrogance is not good.” AAP leader Somnath Bharti expressed concern about access to justice, asking, “If Hon’ble CJI won’t listen to such issues then who will listen?” Whether or not one agrees with the characterisation, the CJI’s words – coming from the bench that is constitutionally the – are bound to influence lower court attitudes and police accountability mechanisms.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to urgently hear the CJP police action plea is a moment that encapsulates the tension between judicial docket management and the imperative to check executive excesses in real time. While the courts are not obligated to entertain every video-led petition, the language used and the outright dismissal of evidence may set a precedent that chills at its most vulnerable stage. As the proceeds with its own hearing, the legal community will watch closely to see whether substantive adjudication follows, or whether the highest courts’ dismissal of the urgency becomes the final word on accountability. For now, the message remains stark: when the Supreme Court says “don’t waste our time,” the clock ticks against those seeking justice in the streets.
