Supreme Court Rejects Plea For 'Free Hand' To Delhi Police Against Protesters: 'These Are Young Students'

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking directions to give the Delhi Police a“free hand” to deal with protesters, observing that the future of young students participating in demonstrations and the concerns of their parents must also be considered, according to a LiveLaw report.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana emphasized that young protesters should not be unnecessarily entangled in prolonged legal proceedings.

“These are young students and protesters before us. We have to see their parents, we have to see they have a long life. They should not be entangled with court hearings,” CJI Kant said, as quoted by LiveLaw.

Quick answers to key questions

.5 QUESTIONS1Why did the Supreme Court reject the plea for a free hand for Delhi Police against protesters?⌵

The bench said the protesters were young students and that their future and their parents' concerns had to be considered. It also said they should not be unnecessarily drawn into prolonged court proceedings.

2What did the plea ask the Supreme Court to direct Delhi Police to do?⌵

The petitioner sought directions allowing Delhi Police to perform its duties independently, without judicial interference. The petition also sought an investigation into FIRs registered against student protesters after demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in July.

3Why did the Supreme Court say the plea amounted to a review of an earlier decision?⌵

The bench observed that the requested relief would effectively review its earlier order quashing the FIRs against the student protesters.

4Why did the Supreme Court quash the FIRs against the student protesters?⌵

The report says the Court invoked Article 142 to quash the FIRs. The Chief Justice referred to the protesters' youth and future, and said they should not have to keep attending court hearings.

5Did the Supreme Court give Delhi Police a free hand to deal with protesters?⌵

No. The Court rejected the plea seeking such directions, emphasizing that young protesters should not be unnecessarily entangled in lengthy legal proceedings.

The bench was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL ) filed by L Ramanathan, who argued that the police should be allowed to discharge their functions independently without judicial interference, as they are“independent and sovereign”.

The petition sought an investigation into the FIRs registered against student protesters following demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in July.

However, the bench observed that the relief sought effectively amounted to a review of its earlier decision to quash the cases.

“There's no guarantee we keep passing 100% correct orders. You say we should not have invoked Article 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,” the CJI said, according to the report.

The petition had been filed before the Supreme Cour passed its 1 September order quashing the FIRs, as per the report.

Delhi Police deny permission for 10 October protest

The development comes amid fresh tensions over planned demonstrations on 10 October at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The Delhi Police have denied permission for the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) proposed protest and declared any gathering illegal, according to a Times of India report.

Also Read | 23,000 cops, facial recognition and more: Delhi braces for CJP protest on Oct 10

The CJP, opposition groups and student organizations are demanding the resignation of CEC Kumar over allegations of“vote theft” and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The CJP had earlier backed the INDIA bloc MPs' protest march towards the Election Commission's office on 6 October.

The Opposition's attack on Kumar has gained momentum following an Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had, on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months, objected to decisions and orders concerning the SIR process, alleging they were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

MENAFN09102026007365015876ID1111782780