The Supreme Court is likely to hear an application Tuesday filed by the Centre urging it to quash cases against students who were part of the July protests over the alleged NEET question paper leak.
“Alright, you file. If parties are reconciling… we have no difficulty,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta placed the request before the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
Mehta told the bench, as it was about to rise for the day, that he had an application and urged the court to hear it on Tuesday itself.
When the CJI asked about the application, Mehta said, “It’s regarding that protest… for quashing of FIRs… We are invoking Article 142.”
The top court is also hearing petitions seeking a probe into alleged police excesses against protesters, and has set up an inquiry committee. On the last date of hearing, August 18, the bench sought the list of FIRs it could quash under Article 142.
Mehta had then told the court that except for 2,873 people booked in grave cases involving murder, rape, abductions, among other charges, cases against others could be quashed.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also heard another plea about the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)’s September 5 march in Delhi and said it expects all to respect and follow the law of the land.
“As of now we will presume, and we have no reason to doubt that everybody will act and behave in a very responsible manner and in a peaceful and lawful manner. So right now there is no compelling circumstance for us to presume anything wrong will happen”.
CJI Kant added that law enforcement agencies give permission for protests and marches. “It is their responsibility to maintain law and order. They will say what is illegal or what is permissible. We are expecting them to act within that framework; we are expecting both sides that they will respect, they will honour, follow the law of the land…”.
The CJP has announced the September 5 march, alleging that the government failed to honour its commitment to withdraw cases against those who participated in the July protests across India.
Advocate Syed Rizwan Ahmed, who appeared for the petitioner who filed a plea against the Cockroach Janta Party march, said the CJP had not even sought permission for the march, as they were looking for a showdown with the police ahead of the BRICS summit.
“The march from India Gate was not proposed, but announced on social media,” he said.
Acknowledging the right to protest, he cautioned that it could develop into a lawless situation.
“This is exactly what they want. They have tasted blood. They know they won’t seek permission. They know the police will stop them. This is exactly what they want in front of international media,” Ahmed said.
Ahmed pointed out that international dignitaries would be coming to Delhi for the BRICS summit.
“Any minor lathi charge. Arguments will be raised again about how criminals got in, what the police were doing, why face recognition was not put there, etc. Then advisories will be issued to say that the Capital is not safe”.
He pointed out an incident during the AI summit when “people stripped themselves and danced”.
The counsel said there is no urgency in their demand that the government withdraw the FIRs against the protesters. “Are the police conducting raids to arrest people named in the FIR? The answer is no,” he submitted.
“If there is any alarming situation, then you file an application before us,” CJI Kant said.
The CJI also reiterated that maintaining law and order was the duty of the Centre and the Delhi Police and asked the petitioner to approach them. “Let the Union of India and GNCT [Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi] decide”.
Ahmed urged the bench repeatedly to hear him before the march date. “Please hear in advance (before September 5). Let them answer if they have applied for permission. Let them appear and show some respect to the system,” he said.
However, the court said it will also refer his petition to the High Powered Enquiry Committee set up by it to look into the alleged police excesses and other aspects arising from the CJP’s July 20 Parliament march.
