Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Limits High-Powered Committee’s Authority in Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) Protest Probe
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
The Supreme Court ruled that its five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) cannot order the registration of FIRs related to the July 20-25 Cockroach Janata Party protests. Only the court may direct criminal investigations; the committee will examine allegations, identify victims and make recommendations. The bench rejected a petition to reconstitute the HPEC and ordered it to operate under the court’s supervision.
Background & Context
- June 20 – Student protests began at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
- July 20-25 – Clashes with police led to FIRs for intimidation, assault and property damage.
- August 18 – The court constituted the HPEC, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, to investigate alleged police excesses.
- September 1 – Using Article 142, the court ordered that FIRs filed during the protest period be treated as closed and barred any new FIRs.
Key Figures & Groups
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant – Head of the bench.
- Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana – Members of the three-judge bench.
- Justice R Subhash Reddy – Chair of the HPEC.
- L R Bishnoi – Retired DGP of Meghalaya, HPEC member.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta – Represented the Centre and Delhi Police.
Data & Statistics
The HPEC comprises five members: Justice Reddy, former Punjab-Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court judge Shalinder Kaur, former CBI director Rishi Kumar Shukla, and retired DGP L R Bishnoi. Its first meeting is scheduled for September 15.
Official Statements & Responses
The court directed Delhi Police to act urgently on an FIR concerning intimidation of a 14-year-old girl and to provide police protection for her family. It noted that concerns about the committee’s composition could be raised before the court, rejecting a request to replace any member.
Solicitor General Mehta defended the committee’s makeup, arguing that allegations of nationwide dishonesty were unfounded.
Criticism & Opposition
Senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Biswajeet Bhattacharya, appearing for petitioners, argued that the HPEC should have a separate amicus and Advocate-on-Record to ensure independence and cited the notice issued to student Akshat Tripathi demanding a INR5 lakh bond despite the September 1 order quashing FIRs.
On-the-Ground Reports
The court ordered immediate action on an FIR filed at Parliament Street police station alleging intimidation of the 14-year-old girl from Uttar Pradesh. In Greater Noida, an executive magistrate issued a notice to Tripathi on September 4, which was reportedly withdrawn later, though no formal withdrawal order has been recorded.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Media accounts state the September 4 notice was withdrawn, but the court has not received an official order confirming the withdrawal.
Verbatim Quotes
- “No penal action against students. The language is very clear in our order,” — CJI Kant
- “Our first request is that since the High-Powered Committee has to function independently, it should have a separate amicus and Advocate-on-Record.” — Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior advocate
What’s Next
The HPEC will hold its inaugural meeting on September 15 and submit a “First Interim Report” as soon as practicable. The Supreme Court will continue to monitor the committee’s work and may entertain further petitions regarding its composition or procedural safeguards.
