Arguments escalated in the Supreme Court during a hearing concerning First Information Reports (FIRs) registered during demonstrations against alleged paper leaks in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and other competitive examinations. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant instructed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the Central government, to submit a clear and categorized list of the cases involved. The court pointed out that passing any specific judicial order would remain purely theoretical without an organized breakdown of the pending FIRs.
Apex Court Highlights Lack of Basic Groundwork
Addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the proceedings, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the government ought to have performed basic homework prior to the hearing. The bench noted that the administration should have conducted an internal exercise to pinpoint exactly which FIRs require continued prosecution and which ones can be disposed of accordingly. CJI Surya Kant emphasized that until the government submits a concrete list outlining cases selected for further legal action, the court lacks the practical foundation needed to pass appropriate orders.
Solicitor General Explains Identification Challenges
In response to the bench's observations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta outlined the logistical and legal difficulties involved in screening the cases. He informed the court that a significant number of the FIRs lodged during the protests were registered against unknown persons. Consequently, relying solely on FIR numbers makes it challenging to distinguish genuine student demonstrators from non-student agitators who infiltrated the crowd to participate in grave criminal activities. The Solicitor General assured the court that he would closely examine the case files and compile a detailed list for submission.
Potential Relief Under Article 142 and Boundary for Serious Offenses
Reflecting on previous indications, the Supreme Court revisited its perspective regarding innocent students swept up in law enforcement actions. The bench reiterated that cases involving strictly student protesters could potentially be quashed by invoking extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the court firmly maintained that individuals facing charges for serious criminal offenses will not be placed on equal footing with students, ensuring that lawbreakers do not receive undue immunity under the guise of student agitation.
