"Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to quash student-protest FIRs amid NEET crisis"
Article 142
Supreme Court's plenary power to pass any order necessary for 'complete justice', not limited by ordinary parliamentary law.
FIR (First Information Report)
foundational document initiating criminal proceedings; quashing removes its legal effect entirely.
India's constitutional framework explicitly protects the right to dissent and public demonstration. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The state may impose reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) on grounds such as public order, sovereignty, and the integrity of India — but the Supreme Court has consistently held that these restrictions must be proportionate and narrowly tailored. In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that the right to protest is integral to a functioning democracy and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily by executive action.
Parallel to these fundamental rights protections, Article 142 of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with a unique plenary power to pass any decree or order necessary to do 'complete justice' in any cause or matter before it. This power is extraordinary in scope: as the Court itself clarified, and as the 2019 UPSC Prelims question directly tested, ordinary laws made by Parliament cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the exercise of Article 142 powers. The provision has historically been invoked in landmark situations — from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement to the Cauvery water dispute — where conventional legal remedies were inadequate. Its proposed use here to quash FIRs en masse against student protesters represents a significant extension of this doctrine into the domain of civil liberties and protest rights.
An FIR (First Information Report) is the foundational document that sets the criminal justice process in motion under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure). Once registered, an FIR creates a legal record that can shadow an individual's career, educational prospects, and passport applications — even if no chargesheet is ever filed. The power to quash an FIR ordinarily rests with the High Courts under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), which preserves inherent powers to prevent abuse of process. The Supreme Court's invocation of Article 142 to quash FIRs directly — bypassing the High Court route — is therefore procedurally exceptional and signals the Court's assessment that ordinary remedies are insufficient given the scale and urgency of the situation.
The constitutional distinction the Court drew in this hearing is analytically important: between peacefully agitating students exercising their Article 19 rights and hardened criminals with serious antecedents who allegedly infiltrated the protest. …
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Consider the following statements:
1.Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2.The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3.The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4.In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
In India, Judicial Review implies
With reference to Article 142 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1.It empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice'.
2.Ordinary laws made by Parliament can limit the exercise of powers under Article 142.
3.Article 142 has been invoked in disputes involving environmental remediation and inter-State water sharing.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly describes the ordinary legal route for quashing an FIR in India, before the Supreme Court's exceptional invocation of Article 142?
Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional right to protest in India:
Statement-I: Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3).
Statement-II: The Supreme Court in the Ramlila Maidan Incident case held that the right to protest is integral to democracy and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily by executive action.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account