Chief Justice of India Surya Kant dismissed as false media reports claiming he refused to list a plea on police action against student protesters. He clarified that no such petition had been filed before the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday rejected as completely false media reports suggesting that he had declined to list a petition challenging the police action against student protesters in the national capital, clarifying that no such petition had in fact been filed before the Supreme Court.
Speaking in open court, the Chief Justice said that what had been placed before him was a letter addressed to him by a lawyer, and not a petition formally filed through the Court’s registry. A mere letter, he said, could not be treated as a petition in the absence of any formal filing.
Expressing displeasure at the manner in which the episode had been covered, and describing the reportage as irresponsible and reckless, the Chief Justice said,
“In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility, falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter. And people start recklessly reporting this.”
ALSO READ: Will Intervene If Supreme Court Metro Station Is Not Reopened by Afternoon: CJI Surya Kant
The remarks came when Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned an unrelated matter for listing before the Chief Justice’s Bench, prompting him to address the controversy directly from the Bench.
The episode traces to July 22, when advocate Narendra Mishra orally raised a letter he had addressed to the Chief Justice concerning the police action against student protesters.
The Bench, which also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was disinclined to entertain the request for urgent listing. Counsel submitted that students were pressing for the fair conduct of the NEET examination and the dissolution of the National Testing Agency, but the Court maintained its position and declined to view any video material.
The Chief Justice told Mishra,
“Don’t waste our time, don’t waste your time.”
When counsel said he had videos showing the police action, the Chief Justice responded,
“We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.”
Counsel persisted, telling the Court that a student protest was under way at Jantar Mantar and that the police were taking brutal action, but the Bench declined to intervene and moved on to the next matter.
The clarification turns on a distinction of some consequence in Supreme Court practice. A matter is instituted before the Court when it is filed through the registry, ordinarily by an Advocate-on-Record, whereupon it is numbered, scrutinised for defects and placed before a Bench in accordance with the roster. A letter addressed to the Chief Justice does not, by itself, set that machinery in motion.
The Court does possess what is known as an epistolary jurisdiction the practice, developed during the early phase of public interest litigation, of treating letters and even postcards from aggrieved persons as writ petitions. That jurisdiction has not been abandoned, but under the Court’s own guidelines on public interest litigation, letter petitions are processed through a designated cell and are entertained in specified categories of cases.
The position the Chief Justice articulated is therefore a procedural one: that until a letter is converted into a petition through formal filing, there is no matter on the board capable of being listed or refused.
Background: the protest
The Cockroach Janta Party protests began as a response to the alleged NEET paper leak and irregularities in the conduct of examinations, and saw thousands of students and activists marching towards Parliament.
The Delhi Police intervened with barricades, tear gas and lathi charges to disperse the crowd. Several protesters were injured, and multiple FIRs were registered in connection with the violence.
The collective has been demonstrating at Jantar Mantar since June, demanding accountability for the paper leaks and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.The agitation escalated on July 20, when the planned ‘Chalo Sansad’ march to Parliament was stopped.
Protesters have alleged excessive force; the Delhi Police have maintained that they acted with restraint and only to preserve public order. Political leaders, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, have demanded accountability over the police action.
Notwithstanding the position before the Supreme Court, the police action is squarely before the courts. The Delhi High Court is seized of a batch of public interest litigations alleging the excessive use of force, in which a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia has issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police, directed the preservation of CCTV footage and videography, and listed the matter for September 11.
The same Bench has separately agreed to hear a plea seeking an investigation by the National Investigation Agency into the protests, and on Friday took up an urgent challenge to the mobile internet shutdown around Jantar Mantar.