The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking an investigation into FIRs registered by the Delhi Police against student protesters over the July Jantar Mantar protests, observing that the plea was essentially a review request of its earlier order quashing the cases.

The court said that it quashed the proceedings using its inherent powers under Article 142 to prevent young students from getting entangled in protracted legal battles, asserting that judicial interventions in such cases consider the long-term prospects and lives of young citizens rather than treating them as hardened criminals.

The plea was filed against the Union, the Delhi Police, the State of NCT of Delhi and Abhijit Dipke.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the plea.


Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara appeared for the Petitioner

Nedumpara submitted, "There is a subliminal—it may not be subliminal—there is a difference of opinion, and there is a protest among common people...The court is burdened by unnecessary proceedings."

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "We are saying that there is no guarantee we will keep passing 100% correct orders, including our own...Now you are saying that we should not have invoked Article 142 and that we could not quash the FIR. These are the things we have to take into consideration. Please appreciate that regarding these young students and the protesters before us, we have to consider their parents, their long lives, and their prospects. We don't want them entangled in coming to the courts and attending hearings."

Nedumpara submitted that if it is a PIL or pro bono litigation where an aggrieved litigant exists in the right remedy forum, he is not against that. He added that in PIL matters, litigants are asking the court to substitute the executive and substitute Parliament, calling upon the court to make decisions behind the back of the people.

"Otherwise, it has to be a representative proceeding following Section 91 of the CPC. This message has to go out. Every day, people come as if this court is their private property. Some of my friends have filed 200 PILs. Someone has even taken the exclusive privilege and portfolio of Common Cause. Public interest litigation needs to have an end", he added.

Chief Justice Kant replied, "You have not seen our other order in the case involving members of the Legislative Assembly and Parliament in the State of Himachal Pradesh. They sat on dharna, blocked national highways, caused damage to public property, and even burned some vehicles. But when? During COVID-19. The situation was such that the people of this country—and indeed no one in the world—were ready to face this kind of sudden crisis. So, people reacted in whatever way they could...The State Government applied because we had issued a judicial mandate stating that cases against these MLAs and MPs could not simply be dropped. Consequently, the High Court declined to quash them. We allowed that application, reasoning that they are not hardened criminals."

The Plea prayed for the declaration that the police is sovereign and independent in its province of maintenance of law and order, investigation of crimes and bringing the guilty to the books as much as the judiciary is sovereign and supreme in its province of administration of justice, and that in as much as there can be no interference in the judicial function by the state/executive, as a corollary there can be no interference on the police of its sovereign function in the exclusive domain of, to repeat, maintenance of law and order and investigation of crimes, unless the police have acted contrary to law or mala fide, which involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact.

It was also prayed that the Respondents must 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.

Cause Title: L Ramanthan v. Union of India and Ors. [WP(C) 1020/2026]

Tags: