New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking directions to give the Delhi Police a free hand to deal with protesters.
During the hearing, a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said the court was conscious that many of the protesters were young students and that their future and families had to be kept in mind.
The CJI stressed that the future of young protesters and their families must be kept in mind, saying they should not be entangled in prolonged court proceedings.
Rejecting the pteition impleading Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke, seeking declaration that police, like judiciary, is sovereign and independent in its maintenance of law and order, teh CJI said that not all orderd passed by the court are 100 per cent correct.
” There’s no guarantee we keep passing 100% correct orders. You say we should not have invoked Art. 142 and quashed FIRs…please appreciate, these are young students…we have to see their parents their future…we don’t want them to have to come to court…you have not seen our order in the case of members of legislative assembly/Parliament,” CHI Surya Kant said.
“in HP, they sat on dharna, they caused loss to public property…but when there was Covid, people of this country were not ready to face this kind of crisis…so people reacted in a way they could react. HC declined to quash, we allowed, saying they are not hardened criminals,” he added.
The Court clarified that persons alleged to be hardened criminals or those accused of serious offences were not beneficiaries of the protection granted by its earlier orders.
Meanwhile, advocate Mathew Nedumpara, representing the petitioner, argued that the apex court should not have quashed FIRs against protesters by invoking Article 142. He said the Court should respect the sentiments of the silent majority and that the police should have been given a free hand.
Notably, the top court is yet to hear the main batch of petitions in the case.
The Court, however, clarified that persons alleged to be hardened criminals or those accused of serious offences were not beneficiaries of the protection granted by its earlier orders.
The plea was filed by L Ramanathan. Meanwhile, advocate Nedumpara, representing the petitioner, argued that the apex court should not have quashed FIRs against protesters by invoking Article 142. He said the Court should respect the sentiments of the silent majority and that the police should have been given a free hand.
Notably, the top court is yet to hear the main batch of petitions in the case.