Supreme Court Uses Article 142 to Quash FIRs Against CJP Protesters – Implications for Judicial Power

The Supreme Court on 1 September 2026 exercised its extraordinary authority under Article 142 to dismiss criminal cases filed against Gen‑Z protesters linked to the CJP . The three‑judge bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant , ordered that the FIRs be closed, invoking the court’s power to ensure “complete justice”. Key Developments On 1 September 2026 , the Supreme Court quashed all FIRs against CJP protesters, citing the need for complete justice. The bench invoked Article 142 to override procedural steps of criminal investigation. Earlier precedents such as Prem Chand Garg and Shilpa Sailesh were cited to delineate the scope of the power. The decision underscores the court’s role as a curative authority, not a substitute for legislature. Important Facts The FIRs originated after a massive leak of the NEET‑UG 2026 paper. Protesters demanded accountability and transparency. By invoking Article 142, the bench effectively halted any further police inquiry, stating that continuation would violate the principle of complete justice. Judicial precedents shaping this power include: Prem Chand Garg (1963) – power cannot be used to breach constitutional provisions. I.C. Golaknath (1967) – described Article 142 as “wide and elastic”. Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India (1991) – ordinary statutory limits do not restrict Article 142. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) – clarified that Article 142 is curative, not supplanting substantive law. Shilpa Sailesh (2023) – allowed departure from procedural law for public‑policy reasons. High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024) – reiterated that the power must not affect parties outside the case or violate natural justice. UPSC Relevance Understanding Article 142 is vital for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates the balance between judicial activism and constitutional limits. The case highlights: How the judiciary can fill legislative gaps while respecting fundamental rights. The concept of “complete justice” and its impact on procedural law. Limits imposed by precedent to prevent overreach, a recurring theme in questions on judicial review. Students should link this to broader debates on the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the role of courts in a democratic polity. Way Forward Future litigants may seek relief under Article 142, but courts will likely scrutinise whether the order conflicts with any constitutional provision or substantive statute. Lawmakers might consider codifying clearer guidelines to prevent ad‑hoc use of this power. For UPSC aspirants, tracking subsequent judgments will help gauge the evolving contour of judicial authority in India.