Ready to drop FIRs against student protesters, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court indicated it is prepared to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against students who took part in NEET-related protests, by invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The relief is proposed for FIRs where the accused are students facing minor or procedural charges; cases involving grave offences — such as murder, rape, kidnapping, or offences under the POCSO Act — will remain open and unaffected.
The Court announced constitution of a high-powered committee, including retired judges and former police officials, to examine allegations of police excesses and other incidents connected with the protests.
Petitioners told the Court that the police have not yet disclosed a complete list of FIRs registered in connection with the protests, which is needed before blanket quashing can be operationalised.
Article 142: The Supreme Court's Power to Do "Complete Justice"
Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it, and such orders are enforceable throughout India. It is a residuary, equity-based power that lets the Court go beyond the strict letter of statute to reach a just outcome, though it cannot violate express constitutional or statutory prohibitions.
Key Details
- First used expansively in cases like the Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989–91) Bhopal gas tragedy litigation, where it was invoked to facilitate a compensation settlement.
- Applied to frame the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) on workplace sexual harassment in the absence of specific legislation, and later in the Ayodhya title dispute (2019) to fashion a land-allotment remedy.
- Courts have clarified in cases such as Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1963) and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) that Article 142 orders must be consistent with fundamental rights and cannot override express statutory provisions — it supplements the law, it does not supplant it.
- Article 142 is distinct from the High Courts' inherent power under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor to Section 482, CrPC) to quash FIRs — that power lies with High Courts case-by-case; Article 142 lets the Supreme Court grant sweeping, one-shot relief across multiple pending matters.
Rather than requiring each protesting student to separately approach a High Court to quash their individual FIR, the Supreme Court is using Article 142 to grant blanket relief in one sweep, reserving the exception only for those accused of serious, non-protest-related offences.
Right to Peaceful Protest and Its Limits
The right to assemble and protest peacefully flows from Article 19(1)(b) (freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) in the interest of public order and sovereignty/integrity of India. Criminal law is not meant to be used as a blanket deterrent against protest itself, but only against specific unlawful conduct within a protest.
Key Details
- Restrictions on assembly must be reasonable and proportionate; excessive or indiscriminate FIRs against protestors can raise concerns of chilling effect on the Article 19(1)(b) right.
- The distinction drawn by the Court — between FIRs against students for mere participation versus FIRs alleging grave, protest-unrelated offences — reflects the proportionality principle applied to criminal process.
By separating "students-only, minor charge" FIRs from those alleging grave crimes, the Court is applying a proportionality-based screen before extending Article 142 relief, rather than quashing every protest-related case indiscriminately.
Judicial Oversight of Police Excesses: Committees and Accountability
Courts periodically constitute expert or high-powered committees — often including retired judges and former senior police officers — to independently examine allegations against the police, since departmental inquiries by the same force accused of excess are seen as inadequate safeguards.
Key Details
- Such committees are typically tasked with fact-finding and recommending accountability measures, distinct from a formal judicial commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
- This mirrors the Supreme Court's broader jurisprudence on custodial and police accountability, tracing back to guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) on arrest and detention safeguards, and Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) on police reforms.
The high-powered committee announced alongside the FIR-quashing relief is meant to independently probe allegations of police excess during the protest crackdown, complementing the criminal-relief track with an accountability track.
- Article 142(1) allows the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for "complete justice" in any pending cause, enforceable across India.
- FIRs to be quashed are limited to student-only cases; grave offences (murder, rape, kidnapping, POCSO) are excluded from the relief.
- The relief traces its jurisprudential lineage to Article 142 use in Union Carbide (1989–91), Vishaka (1997), and the Ayodhya case (2019).
- The Court has directed constitution of a high-powered committee (retired judges, a former DGP, an ex-CBI director among others) to examine police-excess allegations linked to the protests.