The Cockroach Janata Party withdrew its September 5 Delhi march in open court after the Supreme Court quashed the student-protest FIRs under Article 142, calling the outcome “historic.”
New Delhi: The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on Tuesday withdrew its call for the September 5 protest march in Delhi, its co-convener announcing the decision in open court moments after the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash the FIRs against student protesters — bringing to a close, at least for now, a weeks-long standoff that had begun with a march to Parliament in July and the police action that followed.
The withdrawal came before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, and drew from the Chief Justice an appeal to the students to now turn to their studies, along with the remark addressed to the protesters that “the credit goes to all of you.”
‘In view of the assurances… we withdraw the march’
The announcement was made by Saurav Das, co-convener of the CJP, who sought to place a statement on record after the Court had passed its order. He told the Court that, in light of the developments, the party considered it appropriate to call off the protest:
“In view of the positive assurances given by the Government of India, the judicial sanctity now attached to those assurances, and the order being passed by this Court, the CJP considers it appropriate to withdraw its call for the September 5 march. We now look forward to compliance with today’s order.”
Das thanked the Court, as well as Advocate Vrinda Grover and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for their efforts, later adding: “Sir, I just want to thank the Court for what it has done today. It is historic.” The Chief Justice’s response “the credit goes to all of you” and the Solicitor General’s observation that the two sides had been “very constructive” and “are not adversaries” lent the hearing an unusually conciliatory tone for a matter that had, only days earlier, been the subject of a plea to restrain the very march now being called off.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes All Student-Protest FIRs Nationwide Using Article 142
The march that was and the one that won’t be
The significance of the withdrawal is best understood against the sequence of events. The CJP had announced the September 5 march alleging that the Centre had failed to honour its commitment to drop the cases registered against students who took part in the July protests over the NEET paper-leak the agitation that had culminated in a march towards Parliament on July 20 and the allegations of police excess now being examined by a court-appointed committee. Only a day earlier, the Supreme Court had declined to pass any order restraining that march, holding that it could not presume anything untoward would happen and that law and order was for the police to handle. The Centre, in turn, had moved an application to quash the FIRs under Article 142 and it was the passing of that order on Tuesday that removed the grievance underlying the march.
The result is a rare instance of a protest being called off not because it was prohibited, but because the demand behind it was substantially met through a court-supervised settlement. The CJP’s own framing that it was the “judicial sanctity now attached to” the Government’s assurances that made the difference captures the mechanism: an executive promise, once recorded before and endorsed by the Supreme Court under Article 142, carries a bindingness that a mere political assurance does not, and the Court expressly made its order conditional on both sides honouring the understanding.
‘Focus on your academics’
Closing the proceedings, the Chief Justice framed the outcome as a beginning rather than an end, appealing for the remaining issues to be resolved through dialogue and urging the students to look ahead:
“We would prefer that the students now focus on their academics and on building their careers. In a competitive world, creating a place for oneself is not easy.”
He added that if both sides continued to act in good faith, the remaining issues could be resolved “one by one,” and that “there is hardly any issue so complicated that it cannot be addressed through an open-minded discussion.” The remarks, directed at a body of student protesters who had spent weeks in agitation and litigation, marked the Court’s attempt to convert a confrontation into a resolution even as the broader questions, including the alleged police excesses and the right to protest itself, remain to be examined separately by the Court and its committee. The withdrawal of the march closes one chapter; the accountability proceedings arising from the July protests continue.