The Supreme Court on Friday refused to reopen investigations into FIRs registered in connection with the July protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), saying it had invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to spare young students and their parents the ordeal of prolonged criminal proceedings.
Please appreciate, these are young students. We have to see their parents, their future. The latest petition sought a declaration that the police enjoyed independent authority over the maintenance of law and order and criminal investigations, just as the judiciary exercised its authority over the administration of justice. It also sought directions to ensure that investigations into the FIRs relating to the Jantar Mantar protests were conducted independently, fairly and in accordance with law. Nedumpara argued that the police’s investigative domain should not be interfered with unless its actions were contrary to law or actuated by mala fides, which would require adjudication of disputed questions of fact. He also contended that public interest litigation could not be used to substitute the court’s own view for the settled legal position. These include allegations of excessive use of force by the police, violence against security personnel and damage to public property. The committee has been authorised to receive documentary evidence, representations and even anonymous complaints to protect witnesses.
“You say we should not have invoked Article 142 and quashed FIRs. The proceedings also come against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s decision to constitute a high-powered committee of inquiry (HPEC), headed by former Supreme Court judge justice R Subhash Reddy, to independently examine competing allegations arising from the July 20 student protest.
“There is no guarantee we keep passing 100% correct orders,” remarked the bench, while responding to advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who appeared for Ramanathan and argued that the court’s intervention could set a bad precedent by encroaching on the police’s independent authority to investigate offences. We don’t want them to have to come to court over and over again,” said the bench, underlining that the decision was guided by the need to prevent students from being trapped in protracted litigation over the protests.
The bench, however, defended its earlier intervention, pointing to the extraordinary circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic and the public reaction to the crisis.
“Everyday people come as if this (court) is their private property,” he said, questioning the maintainability of petitions filed in the absence of actual litigants. Referring to cases involving protests and damage to public property in Himachal Pradesh, the judges said the court had taken into account the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the fact that those involved were not hardened criminals.
