The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by L Ramanathan seeking a declaration that the police, like the judiciary, are sovereign and independent in maintaining law and order and investigating crimes, and that their functions should not be interfered with unless they act contrary to law. The petition had impleaded Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi as respondents.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard arguments of Advocate Methews Nedumpara concerning judicial intervention in police investigations, the scope of public interest litigation (PIL), and the Supreme Court’s decision to quash FIRs against students involved in the Jantar Mantar protests.
During the hearing, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara argued that while pro bono litigation involving an identifiable person aggrieved by an action raises no objection, PILs without actual litigants should not be used to seek decisions behind the backs of those affected.
Nedumpara said that PILs in the absence of actual aggrieved parties risk allowing courts to decide issues without hearing those directly affected. He submitted that representative proceedings, rather than individual PILs seeking broad judicial intervention, would be appropriate in such cases.
“
“Now, the issue is, my Lord, if a pro bono litigation where an actual client exists, nobody has a hesitation, nobody has a quarrel about that. When there are no actual litigants and when decisions are so to be made behind the back of the people, if a public interest litigation is permissible in these areas, it has to be a representative proceedings.
If pro bono litigation where there exists a litigant, a person aggrieved, [there is a] right remedy for them. I am not against that. But the PIL matters, they are asking the court to substitute the executive, substituting the Parliament and calling upon the court to take a decision behind the back of the people. Otherwise, it has to be a representative proceedings. Follow Section 91 of the CPC.”
CJI Surya Kant on quashing FIRs against students
Responding to the criticism of the Court’s decision to invoke Article 142 to quash FIRs against student protesters, CJI Surya Kant said the Court had to consider the long-term consequences of criminal proceedings for young people. He candidly remarked that:“There is no guarantee that we keep on passing 100 percent correct orders.”
The CJI remarked that interests of the students
“
“You are saying that we should not have invoked Article 142, we could not file the FIR. These are the things we have to take into consideration. We have to see their parents. We have to see their long life. We have to see their prospective. We don’t want them to entangle coming to the courts and attending hearings.”
The Bench had earlier invoked Article 142 to quash FIRs registered in connection with the NEETprotests at Jantar Mantar in July. The Court considered the future prospects of students who had participated in the demonstrations and the commitments made by the Union government and other stakeholders. The order also preserved the police’s ability to register a fresh FIR against 2,873 identified individuals, subject to the Court’s directions.
CJI Surya Kant also referred to an earlier case involving members of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Parliament who had participated in a protest during the COVID-19 pandemic. He recalled allegations that the legislators had blocked highways, damaged public property and burnt vehicles, but said the circumstances surrounding the incident could not be ignored.
“
“You have not seen our another order. In the case of the members of the Legislative Assembly, members of the Parliament in the state of Himachal Pradesh. They sat on dharna. They stopped national highways. They stopped national roads. They caused loss to the public property. They burnt some vehicles also. But when? During COVID-19.”
He added that the pandemic had presented an unprecedented crisis and the public had reacted in circumstances for which nobody was prepared.
“
“People of this country were not ready. Nobody in the world was ready to face this kind of crisis, which came suddenly. So, people reacted in the way, whatever they could react.”
With these observations, the court rejected the plea seeking directions to protect the independence of police investigations and prevent interference in the police’s functions