NEET protest: SC rejects plea for independent probe into CJP agitation

On Friday, the Supreme Court turned down a petition asking for directions to the Central Government, the Delhi Government, and the police to guarantee a fair and independent inquiry into the protest held at Jantar Mantar in July by the Cockroach Janta Party.

The demonstration by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) regarding the NEET paper leak had ultimately led to Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan stepping down from his post.

Additionally, the apex court declined to issue a declaration stating that police, similar to the judiciary, discharge sovereign and independent duties in upholding law and order and investigating offenses, operating free from interference unless their conduct violates the law.


Also read: Delhi protests: SC rejects plea for Delhi Police to get free hand on protesters

A bench featuring Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana presided over the petition regarding the probe into FIRs filed during the Jantar Mantar demonstrations.

The legal action named the Centre, the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Delhi Government, Shailendra Mani Tripathi (a PIL petitioner in the CJP protest matter), and CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke as respondents.

Representing petitioner L Ramanathan, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara challenged the maintainability of PILs requesting court intervention when actual litigants are absent, remarking that individuals were treating the court as if it were personal property.

Also read: Delhi HC refuses to grant urgent hearing to IYC's plea for protest at Jantar Mantar

Addressing these arguments, the CJI upheld the court's reliance on Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside specific FIRs.

"There is no guarantee that we keep passing 100 per cent correct orders. You say we should not have invoked Article 142 and quashed FIRs...please appreciate, these are young students.

"We have to see their parents, their future. We don't want them to come to court... You have not seen our order in the case of members of legislative assembly/Parliament," the bench remarked.

Referring to an instance from Himachal Pradesh, the CJI noted that certain political leaders had staged a protest there, resulting in damage to public property.

"But when there was Covid, people of this country were not ready to face this kind of crisis... so people reacted in a way they could react. The High Court declined to quash (the FIRs), but, we allowed, saying they are not hardened criminals," he observed.

The bench highlighted that the prayer essentially amounted to a review request against the earlier order that quashed FIRs under Article 142.

The petition had urged the court to hold that police hold an autonomous domain of authority when maintaining order, probing crimes, and prosecuting offenders, on par with the independence granted to the judiciary.

It contended that just as executive interference in judicial tasks is impermissible, police operations within their allocated jurisdiction ought to remain free from outside interference unless officers act illegally or in bad faith—issues that might require deciding disputed facts.

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Centre, Delhi government, city police) and to ensure that the investigation into the FIR(s) registered in connection with the Jantar Mantar Protests is conducted independently, fairly, and in accordance with law," stated the petition.

The CJP-led agitation began on June 20, with protesters demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The movement also called for wider reforms in the examination system, amid concerns over the integrity of entrance tests. The protests gained momentum with the participation of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who began an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 28 in support of the demands.

The agitation continued through July, with the CJP reiterating its demand for Pradhan's resignation and arguing that the government's response to the paper leak controversy did not address accountability. The protests subsequently led to legal proceedings over the police action against demonstrators.