Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of India made a significant decision by quashing all First Information Reports (FIRs) related to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) student protests across the nation. While this decision effectively ended the legal proceedings arising from these protests, it opens the door to several constitutional discussions. The Court did, however, allow the Central Government and Delhi Police to file new FIRs against 2,873 individuals with serious criminal records.
Inadequate Justification for Quashing FIRs
The Supreme Court’s order was passed following applications by the Delhi Police and various State governments seeking the dismissal of FIRs lodged between July 20-25 during the protests. Typically, a party looking to quash an FIR would approach the respective High Court. However, in this instance, the State directly sought the Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Court to pass orders to ensure complete justice in any pending matter.
This extraordinary power has been used before to nullify criminal proceedings, provided it adheres to specific principles. These principles include considering the nature of the offense, societal impact, the seriousness of injury, voluntary compromise between involved parties, and the accused’s behavior. The Court has previously overturned High Court decisions when such powers were exercised without proper consideration.
A notable application of Article 142 was in the case of Ramgopal and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), where the Court detailed these principles before quashing the proceedings. However, the current order deviates from this methodical approach. It does not cite these principles or explain how they justify quashing the FIRs, suggesting a potential oversight or mechanical application. Moreover, the order lacks a substantial discussion of its rationale for using Article 142. The Court merely refers to commitments by stakeholders and the protesters’ future prospects, considerations that do not appear to legally justify the mass quashing of FIRs.
The Court has indicated that this order should not be a binding precedent, attempting to restrict it to the unique circumstances of this case. However, history shows that once such extraordinary relief is granted, it often inspires similar requests from other parties. Therefore, it was imperative for the Court to clearly define the exceptional nature of the case, the legal foundation for its decision, and the boundaries of this power, both to clarify the law and prevent further litigation.
More Read
Uniform Treatment of Diverse FIRs
The breadth of the order is noteworthy as it dismisses all FIRs related to the protests, except for those involving the 2,873 individuals. This approach disregards the distinction between different offenses, some of which may be non-compoundable and have a societal impact beyond private disputes. Courts generally differentiate between offenses with civil or private nature and those that are heinous or have broader societal consequences.
The application by the Delhi Police itself pointed out that several FIRs included serious allegations like rioting, attempted murder, and robbery. By nullifying all FIRs regardless of the offenses, the Court collapsed these distinctions and the principles that typically govern such decisions.
The Court’s Role Beyond Adjudication
The proceedings reveal the Court’s expanded role, which included facilitating a resolution between parties, beyond merely resolving legal questions. This was evident when, during the hearing, the Court acknowledged a statement from a CJP representative about withdrawing a planned protest in light of government assurances.
While there is no inherent issue with the Court encouraging amicable resolutions, the problem arises when such resolutions influence legal determinations, such as FIR quashings. The Court’s order references commitments from stakeholders as part of its reasoning for invoking Article 142, blending adjudication with mediation roles without clarifying how the latter influences the former.
Conclusion
This order is unprecedented and significant, granting relief to students who, on the face of it, endured severe police actions. However, its lack of thorough reasoning, reliance on settled legal principles, and clarity regarding its legal foundation are concerning.
Swapnil Tripathi, leading Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, provides personal insights on the matter.
