Large protests in recent years have often led to multiple FIRs being registered at different police stations, and a follow-up SC hearing is expected to affect this.

Large protests in recent years have often led to multiple FIRs being registered at different police stations, and a follow-up SC hearing is expected to affect this.

Large protests in recent years have often led to multiple FIRs being registered at different police stations, and a follow-up SC hearing is expected to affect this.

The Supreme Court's interim order in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) anti-NEET paper leak protest case has given temporary relief to protesters while leaving some key legal questions unanswered.

The top court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners until further orders. It also ordered the release of detained minors who have no criminal antecedents. However, it did not quash the FIRs or stop the police investigation.

What does no coercive action mean?

The Court has allowed the investigation to continue but has restrained the police from taking coercive steps against the petitioners.

In legal terms, an investigation includes collecting evidence, recording statements, examining CCTV footage and identifying those allegedly involved in an incident.

Coercive action generally refers to measures that directly affect a person's liberty, such as arrest, detention or custodial interrogation. By restraining coercive action, the Court has ensured that the investigation can continue without immediate action against the protesters.

The Court has not said that the FIRs are illegal or that the police cannot investigate the allegations.

Why is the CJP still dissatisfied?

The main concern for the CJP is not only the possibility of arrest but also the large number of FIRs registered in connection with the protests.

According to the CJP, the FIRs arise out of one continuous protest against the alleged NEET paper leak and the subsequent police action. It argues that instead of registering several FIRs at different police stations, there should be one investigation covering the entire protest.

The organisation says multiple FIRs create practical difficulties for the accused. Every FIR may require separate legal representation, separate bail applications, separate investigations and repeated appearances before different courts or investigating officers.

CJP has therefore asked the Supreme Court to direct that the FIRs be clubbed together.

Can the Court order all FIRs to be merged?

The answer depends on whether the FIRs relate to the same transaction or to different incidents.

The Supreme Court has held in earlier judgments, including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), that there ordinarily cannot be multiple FIRs relating to the same offence or the same transaction. If different FIRs describe the same incident, subsequent FIRs may not be legally sustainable.

However, the Court has also recognised that separate FIRs are permissible if they relate to different incidents, different places, different victims or distinct offences. This is the central dispute in the CJP case.

What is the Delhi Police's stand?

The Delhi Police has argued that the FIRs relate to different incidents at different locations during the protests. According to the police, each case involves separate facts and therefore requires an independent investigation.

The CJP, on the other hand, argues that all the incidents form part of one protest movement and should be investigated together.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided which view is correct.

Why didn't the Supreme Court decide this issue immediately?

The Court chose to grant interim protection while keeping the legal issue open.

For the moment, it has ensured that no coercive action is taken against the petitioners, but it has allowed the investigation to continue. The question of whether the FIRs should be clubbed together will be considered during a detailed hearing.

Why is the case important?

The case goes beyond the CJP protests.

Large protests in recent years have often led to multiple FIRs being registered at different police stations. The Supreme Court's final decision could clarify when several FIRs can be registered for one protest and when they should be treated as part of the same transaction.

The ruling is also expected to provide guidance on how police investigations should be conducted during large public protests while balancing the rights of protesters and the powers of law enforcement.

TAGS