Column flags constitutional questions in CJP protest FIR order

A column by Swapnil Tripathi of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy questions the Supreme Court order quashing all FIRs registered across India over the student protest led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). Invoking Article 142, the Court allowed fresh FIRs against 2,873 people with serious criminal antecedents. Tripathi says the order gave inadequate reasons for quashing FIRs registered between July 20-25 and treated serious offences such as rioting, attempt to murder and robbery on par with others.

Written by AI from Bar & Bench (courts) · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 17 Sept 2026, 7:28 pm IST

Source

Bar & Bench (courts) · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#article 142#fir quashing#student protest#constitutional law

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

The Supreme Court quashed all FIRs registered across India over the student protest led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). — Stated in the source as fact; the order text itself is not quoted, no case number or date of order given.
The order permits the Central government and Delhi Police to register fresh FIRs against 2,873 individuals with serious criminal antecedents. — Figure appears in the source; attributed to the order but not independently sourced in the text.
FIRs sought to be quashed were registered between July 20-25 during the protests. — Date range appears in the source, attributed to applications moved by Delhi Police and State governments.
The Court directed that the order shall not be treated as binding precedent. — Attributed to the order by the author; no verbatim extract provided.
The order is inadequately reasoned and collapses distinctions between offences. — Author's opinion, expressly marked as personal views of Swapnil Tripathi of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

Written by AI from Bar & Bench (courts) · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This is not merely a legal order — it is a judicial settlement that has taken the shape of something close to a political accommodation. The quashing of FIRs gives relief to student protesters, while the withdrawal of the September 5 march gives the government an exit from a street confrontation; in immediate political arithmetic, both sides gained. But the criticism Swapnil Tripathi raises — that the reasoning was inadequate — leaves the door open for other groups to seek the same relief and for the order itself to be used as a political argument.

The article notes that the quashing was sought by the Delhi Police and State governments themselves, suggesting the continuing criminal cases had become a political liability for the governments too.
The CJP's immediate gain is clear: lifting the threat of cases against thousands of workers preserves organisational strength, even as calling off the march may cost it some momentum.
Permission to file fresh FIRs against 2,873 people with serious antecedents leaves the government residual leverage, and who lands on that list could itself become a political flashpoint.
The criticism that serious offences like rioting and attempt to murder were quashed alongside minor ones gives ammunition to both pro-government and opposition-leaning arguments about selective judicial leniency.
Despite the direction that the order is not a binding precedent, the political incentive for other movements to approach the Court for similar en-masse relief remains.

What to watch — Watch how and against whom the fresh FIRs from the 2,873 list are registered, and whether both sides honour the commitments recorded before the Court — that is where the next political friction lies.

This story is built on one legal expert's personal commentary and does not establish that any political bargain underlay the order, or who ultimately gains politically from it.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

A column by Swapnil Tripathi of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy examines a Supreme Court order passed earlier in September 2026 that quashed all FIRs registered across India in connection with a student protest led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The Court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, while permitting the Central government and Delhi Police to register fresh FIRs against 2,873 individuals with serious criminal antecedents. The applications for quashing were moved by the Delhi Police and other State governments directly before the Supreme Court, rather than the High Courts as ordinary procedure would require. The column argues the order was inadequately reasoned, treated unlike offences alike, and blurred the line between adjudication and mediation.

Key facts

The Supreme Court order quashed all FIRs registered across India in connection with the student protest led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).
The Court permitted the Central government and the Delhi Police to register fresh FIRs against 2,873 individuals having serious criminal antecedents.
The FIRs sought to be quashed were registered between July 20-25 during the student protests.
The applications were moved by the Delhi Police and other State governments directly before the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142.
The Delhi Police application itself noted that some FIRs involved serious offences such as rioting, attempt to murder and robbery.
Paragraph 12 of the order cites commitments made by all stakeholders and the 'future prospects of the young protesters' as the explanation for invoking Article 142.
The Court directed that the order shall not be treated as a binding precedent, confining it to the peculiar circumstances of the case.
A CJP representative was allowed to read a statement in Court withdrawing the call for a march on September 5, citing government assurances and their 'judicial sanctity'.

Timeline

2021Supreme Court decides Ramgopal and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, authored by Justice Surya Kant, applying settled principles before quashing proceedings under Article 142.
July 20-25 (year as per protests)FIRs registered across India during the student protests led by the CJP.
Before September 5Applications mentioned by the Solicitor General; Chief Justice remarks 'if the parties are reconciling, we have no difficulty.' CJP later withdraws its call for a September 5 march.
Early September 2026Supreme Court passes the order quashing all protest-related FIRs under Article 142, allowing fresh FIRs against 2,873 individuals.
17 September 2026Column by Swapnil Tripathi published, flagging constitutional questions in the order.

Who has a stake

Supreme Court of India — Its use of Article 142 without articulating settled principles invites criticism of mechanical, unreasoned quashing and of blurring adjudication with mediation.
Student protesters / CJP — Received significant relief through mass quashing of FIRs after facing what the column calls prima facie considerable police brutality; relief is conditional on honouring commitments.
2,873 identified individuals — Excluded from the relief; fresh FIRs may be registered against them on grounds of serious criminal antecedents.
Delhi Police and State governments — Moved the applications for quashing; their own application flagged serious offences like rioting, attempt to murder and robbery.
Central government (Union) — Made commitments before the Court that formed part of the reasoning for invoking Article 142; permitted to register fresh FIRs in specified cases.
High Courts — Ordinary forum for FIR quashing was bypassed as parties approached the Supreme Court directly.
Future litigants — Despite the 'not a precedent' direction, similarly placed parties may seek the same extraordinary relief, risking more litigation.

Why it matters

Article 142 is an extraordinary equitable power, and its use to wipe out FIRs en masse — including for non-compoundable offences like attempt to murder and rioting — without applying settled principles raises questions about consistency and the rule of law. The column warns that once such an exceptional remedy is granted, a direction that it is not a precedent may not stop others from seeking the same relief. It also raises a deeper institutional question about courts acting simultaneously as adjudicators and mediators.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for 'doing complete justice' in a matter pending before it.
Ordinarily, quashing of an FIR is sought before the respective High Court, not the Supreme Court directly.
Ramgopal and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), authored by Justice Surya Kant, involved quashing under Article 142 in IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 offences.
Principles for quashing criminal proceedings: nature and effect of the offence on society's conscience, seriousness of injury, voluntariness of compromise, and conduct of the accused.
Courts allow greater latitude in quashing offences of civil or private character but are circumspect with heinous or serious offences with wider societal impact.
The order allowed fresh FIRs against 2,873 individuals with serious criminal antecedents; FIRs in question were registered July 20-25.

Mains framing

The order quashing all FIRs arising from the CJP-led student protests illustrates the tension between the Supreme Court's equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 and the discipline of reasoned adjudication. The column identifies three problems: first, the Court did not record how the settled principles governing quashing — societal impact of the offence, seriousness of injury, voluntariness of compromise, conduct of the accused, as applied in Ramgopal (2021) — were satisfied, making the exercise appear mechanical; second, an omnibus order collapsed the distinction between minor and grave, non-compoundable offences such as rioting, attempt to murder and robbery, which the Delhi Police itself had flagged; third, by relying on the CJP's withdrawal of the September 5 march and stakeholder commitments as reasons for invoking Article 142, the Court mixed a mediatory role with its adjudicatory function without explaining the connection. The counterpoint is that the protesters had prima facie faced considerable police brutality and reconciliation among parties served a larger public interest; the Court also directed that the order not be treated as binding precedent. The way forward, per the column, lies not in denying relief but in reasoning it properly: articulating the exceptional facts, the legal basis for Article 142 relief, and the outer limits of such power, so that settled law is not destabilised and copycat litigation is deterred.

Key terms

Article 142: Constitutional provision enabling the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for 'doing complete justice' in a pending matter, including quashing criminal proceedings.
Quashing of FIR: Judicial cancellation of a First Information Report and the criminal proceedings flowing from it, ordinarily sought before the concerned High Court.
Non-compoundable offence: An offence that the law does not permit to be settled privately between accused and victim, being treated as having wider societal impact.
Cockroach Janata Party (CJP): The outfit that led the student protest; its representative read a statement in Court withdrawing the proposed September 5 march.
Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021): Supreme Court judgment, authored by Justice Surya Kant, which applied the settled principles before quashing proceedings under Article 142.
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy / Charkha: Legal think tank and its Constitutional Law Centre, led by the column's author Swapnil Tripathi.

Practice questions

Critically examine the scope and limits of the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings. Should such power extend to en masse quashing of FIRs?
Discuss the principles courts must apply while quashing criminal proceedings, distinguishing between offences of a private character and those with wider societal impact.
'Judicial mediation and judicial adjudication serve different ends.' In light of the CJP protest FIR order, discuss the risks when a constitutional court performs both roles simultaneously.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyMumbai petrol pumps warn of halting UPI payments over MDR →

← All stories