The Supreme Court said allegations of intimidation and violence involving a 14-year-old girl linked to the CJP protests cannot be taken lightly, and directed immediate action on the FIR she has lodged, along with police protection for her and her family.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that allegations of intimidation and violence involving a 14-year-old girl connected to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests could not be taken lightly, holding that no one can be allowed to browbeat a victim or her family merely because they are pursuing criminal proceedings, and directing immediate action on the girl’s FIR and police protection for her and her family [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the submission in the batch of petitions concerning the policing of the July protests. In view of the girl’s age, LawChakra is not naming her or publishing any detail that could identify her, in keeping with the protection the law extends to minors and the very concern the Court expressed about shielding the child from further exposure.
‘Such allegations cannot be taken lightly’
The issue was raised by counsel, who told the Court that instead of proceeding against the persons allegedly involved in assaulting and intimidating the girl, some of whom were said to have been captured on camera, the authorities had registered an FIR against the 14-year-old herself. That, counsel submitted, was contrary to the Supreme Court’s earlier protective directions. Counsel added that further video material could be placed on record, including footage said to show stone-pelting at the girl’s residence, and warned that while the High-Powered Committee would take time, any harm to the child in the interim could not later be undone through the Committee process.
The Chief Justice responded that there could be no two views on the seriousness of the matter:
“There can be no two views about that. Such allegations cannot be taken lightly. No one should be shielded. If violence against a child is involved, and persons are roaming free while allegedly trying to intimidate the child or her family so that they do not pursue criminal proceedings, that would be a serious matter.”
Counsel clarified that this concerned a victim distinct from the others in the batch, a 14-year-old who had initially been in Delhi and was now in Uttar Pradesh, and in whose case an FIR had been registered at the Parliament Street Police Station. The persons against whom the allegations were made, counsel said, were not police personnel but alleged vigilantes.
Court directs immediate action and protection
Justice Bagchi, addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, set out what the Court wanted done. He noted that there was an FIR at the Parliament Street Police Station alleging that certain miscreants had threatened, harassed and intimidated a minor girl and committed acts of violence against her, and directed that immediate action be taken on it:
“We want immediate action to be taken on that FIR and a status report to be filed before this Court. The victim and her family must also be given appropriate police protection by the Uttar Pradesh Police, wherever she is currently residing or wherever she may choose to stay. The investigation in the Parliament Street Police Station FIR will continue.”
The Solicitor General responded that he would examine the entire matter and that whatever action was required on the facts could certainly be taken. Counsel had also sought status reports from Uttar Pradesh and Delhi on the FIRs, the security provided to the child, and the action taken against those allegedly involved.
Investigating allegations against the police
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan raised a distinct concern about the wider inquiry, asking whether the police would, in effect, be investigating allegations made against themselves. Justice Bagchi clarified the sequence the Court envisaged, distinguishing this from the immediate protective step directed for the child:
“No. Let the inquiry first proceed and the allegations concerning individual victims become clear. The victims can be identified, their statements examined, the relevant material prima facie assessed, and the High-Powered Committee can then make its recommendations.”
Hariharan said he sought only clarity on that point. The Chief Justice indicated that the Court would examine the complaints, iron out these issues and, if necessary, further clarify its earlier directions, adding that there was no ambiguity from the Court’s side and that it would pass an order.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes All Student-Protest FIRs Nationwide Using Article 142
Why the direction matters
The exchange illustrates the limits of a fact-finding committee as a remedy where a live risk to a vulnerable person exists. Counsel’s core point, that the Committee will take time and that harm to a child in the interim cannot be undone later, drew from the Court a distinction it was careful to preserve: the systemic inquiry into police conduct can await the Committee’s structured process, but an immediate, individualised threat to a minor cannot, and calls for the Court’s direct intervention here and now. The direction for immediate action on the FIR and for police protection reflects that the protection of a child at risk operates on a different, more urgent track than the broader investigation.
The Court’s framing, that no one should be shielded and that intimidating a victim or her family to deter them from pursuing criminal proceedings is a serious matter, restates a principle central to the fair administration of criminal justice: that a complainant’s ability to pursue a case without fear is itself a protected interest, and all the more so where the complainant is a child. The registration of a counter-FIR against the girl, set against the alleged intimidation of her, is precisely the situation the Court’s earlier protective orders were meant to prevent, and the Bench indicated it would clarify those directions if required. With a status report called for and protection ordered, the immediate concern has been addressed; the larger questions of who is responsible, and whether the earlier protection was breached, are left to be worked out as the matter proceeds. Nothing has been finally determined, and the allegations on all sides remain to be examined.
Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Hearing: September 10, 2026
