Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Order Quashing Jantar Mantar FIRs, CJI Says Students Should Not Be Tied Down in Legal Entanglements The Supreme Court has refused to hear a plea challenging the dismissal of FIRs linked to the July CJP protest at Jantar Mantar, with CJI Surya Kant stressing that young students must not face endless courtroom visits. The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a petition challenging its decision to quash police complaints arising from the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) demonstration at Jantar Mantar in July. The plea had urged the bench to order an impartial investigation into the First Information Reports registered following the protest. During the proceedings, CJI Surya Kant observed that those facing legal scrutiny are young students whose careers and families must be kept in mind. The Chief Justice remarked that the bench does not want these youngsters trapped in long-drawn legal procedures or forced to make repeated rounds of courtrooms. Arguments in Court and Precedents of Relief Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued before the bench that a strong message needed to be sent across society that courts cannot be treated as personal property and that legal compliance is mandatory. The petition maintained that the judicial order cancelling the criminal cases was erroneous. In response, CJI Surya Kant pointed out that the Supreme Court has previously struck down criminal cases across different situations. The Chief Justice highlighted instances where cases arising from demonstrations by Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies, as well as protests staged during the Covid pandemic restrictions, were cancelled by the court. In those instances, relief was granted because the individuals involved were not habitual offenders. CJI Surya Kant noted that the present petition was essentially seeking a review of the court's earlier ruling, leading the bench to dismiss the matter without further hearing. Central Government Assurances and Sonam Wangchuk Fast The controversy dates back to a protest movement where the Central Government took an accommodating position regarding cases against citizens holding peaceful demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and those joining the march to Parliament on July 20. Sonam Wangchuk had undertaken a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar beginning on June 28. He subsequently broke his fast at Medanta Hospital in the presence of Union Minister JP Nadda and Union Minister Jitendra Singh. During those developments, the Central Government extended an assurance to Wangchuk that peaceful student demonstrators would not face punitive action. The authorities also committed that the criminal complaints registered against the protesting youths would be withdrawn. Permission Denied for Fresh Protest on October 10 In a related development, the Cockroach Janata Party has been refused police clearance to stage another protest at Jantar Mantar scheduled for October 10. The law enforcement authorities have clarified the operational reasons behind turning down the application. Joint CP Nupur Prasad stated that the outfit had moved a representation before the New Delhi district authorities on October 7. In that plea, the party indicated its intention to stage a demonstration on the 10th regarding the accountability of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), though local authorities decided against permitting the assembly. What this means for you The Supreme Court ruling shields students and non-habitual protesters from prolonged harassment in courtrooms over peaceful assemblies. • Across India: Peaceful student participants without prior criminal records receive legal protection against protracted court trials. This establishes that public authorities and courts view non-habitual demonstrators differently from routine criminal offenders. • In Delhi: Demonstrators involved in the July Jantar Mantar agitation will not face renewed legal proceedings after the dismissal of this challenge. Young participants are protected from administrative harassment, preserving their education and employment opportunities. • For Event Organizers: Organizing political gatherings at designated protest venues in the capital requires strict procedural compliance and official clearance. Police authorities can withhold permissions for administrative and security reasons, as seen with CJP. • For Students and Families: The bench prioritized the long-term careers and family peace of student demonstrators over punitive prosecutions. This prevents civil protests from derailing young academic and professional futures. Why this happened The Supreme Court rejected the petition to protect young students from court cases and because the plea merely sought to overturn an already settled ruling. • Safeguarding Student Futures: CJI Surya Kant observed that the demonstrators were young students whose entire lives and parental hopes were at stake. The court refused to let their careers be jeopardized by ongoing legal proceedings. • Precedent for Non-Habitual Protesters: The bench reasoned that these demonstrators were not habitual offenders, comparing the situation to quashed cases involving political sit-ins by legislators or Covid period violations. This established past legal practice justified dropping the charges. • Government Commitments: The Central Government had previously promised Sonam Wangchuk that peaceful protesters would be spared legal action and cases would be withdrawn when he broke his fast. The judicial outcome aligns with that commitment. • Reasons for Denying Fresh CJP Permit: Joint CP Nupur Prasad confirmed that the outfit applied on October 7 to protest over Chief Election Commissioner accountability on October 10, which was turned down on law and order grounds. Questions & Answers 1. What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the Jantar Mantar FIRs? The Supreme Court declined to hear a petition challenging its decision to quash the FIRs registered during the July CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. 2. What remarks did CJI Surya Kant make regarding the students? CJI Surya Kant stated that the court does not want young students to get tangled in legal proceedings and face continuous rounds of courtrooms. 3. Which legal precedents were cited by the Chief Justice? The Chief Justice cited instances where cases against lawmakers during sit-ins and protesters during Covid restrictions were quashed since they were not habitual offenders. 4. When and where did Sonam Wangchuk end his hunger strike? Sonam Wangchuk ended his fast, which began on June 28, at Medanta Hospital in the presence of Union Ministers JP Nadda and Jitendra Singh. 5. Why was CJP denied permission for its October 10 protest? Joint CP Nupur Prasad stated that CJP applied on October 7 to demonstrate against Chief Election Commissioner accountability on October 10, but clearance was denied. https://trendkia.com/en/national/jantar-mantar-pradarshana-mamale-men-fir-radda-karane-ke-adesha-para-phira-se-sunavai-karane-se-supreme-court-ka-inakara-cji-bole--45278 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.