The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking to make Cockroach Janata Party founder Abhijeet Dipke a party in proceedings, declining to review orders that quashed first information reports against young students. The petitioner had simultaneously demanded that the police force be declared a sovereign and independent institution on par with the judiciary. A three-judge bench firmly turned down both prayers, granting complete relief to Dipke.
Judicial Discretion and Article 142 in Student Matters
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice NV Anjaria took up the petition. Advocate Mathews Nedumpara argued on behalf of the petitioner, contending that public interest litigation mechanisms were being misused and claiming that litigants approach courts as if the institution were private property. He specifically questioned the invocation of special judicial powers to cancel complaints registered against students.
Responding directly to the submissions, CJI Surya Kant questioned the contention that the court erred in invoking Article 142 to quash criminal cases against youngsters. The bench pointed out that judges must consider the long-term prospects of young students and the distress faced by their parents. CJI Surya Kant stressed that young individuals should not be subjected to repeated and exhausting rounds of litigation, adding that no legal decision carries an absolute guarantee of absolute perfection.
Rejection of Sovereign Status for Police Forces
The petition raised a sweeping demand that police authorities should be accorded sovereign independence identical to the judiciary when handling law and order matters. According to the petitioner, sovereign policing functions ought to remain shielded from court interference unless an action explicitly contravenes existing statutory laws. The bench declined to entertain this interpretation, upholding existing constitutional checks over executive agencies.
Precedent of Himachal Pradesh Lawmakers Cited
To contextualize its approach toward non-habitual offenders, the bench referred to an earlier ruling concerning elected legislators in Himachal Pradesh. In that case, lawmakers had staged demonstrations that caused damage to public property, leading the relevant High Court to dismiss their plea for quashing registered cases.
The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that decision, taking into account the immense social and human stress experienced across the country during the COVID-19 pandemic. CJI Surya Kant recalled that the court quashed those proceedings because the individuals involved were not habitual offenders. The judges observed that similar considerations apply when evaluating cases involving youth, affirming that the legal system must avoid criminalizing individuals over isolated incidents.
