360° UPSC Mains Analysis

Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure fall under Entry 1 and Entry 2 of the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule, allowing both the Union and States to legislate on them. However, the constitution, organization, and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court fall exclusively under Entry 77 of the Union List (List I). This ensures that the extraordinary power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 to do complete justice remains a uniform, centralized constitutional safeguard across India.

The historical root of Article 142 lies in Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which empowered the Federal Court of India to issue orders for enforcing its decrees and conducting discovery. During the drafting of the Constitution, this provision was introduced as Draft Article 118. On May 27, 1949, the Constituent Assembly adopted the draft article without debate, reflecting a consensus that the highest court of the new republic required plenary, equitable powers to deliver 'complete justice' where statutory law fell short.

Since independence, the judicial application of Article 142 has evolved from a cautious, supplementary tool to an expansive instrument of judicial activism, followed by a period of self-imposed restraint. In early decades, the Supreme Court maintained that this power could not override fundamental rights, as seen in Prem Chand Garg (1963). However, by the late 1980s and 1990s, the Court expanded its scope to bypass statutory limitations to resolve complex socio-political and environmental crises, such as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement in 1991. In recent years, through rulings like Supreme Court Bar Association (1998) and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (2024), the Court has recalibrated this power, emphasizing that it must supplement rather than supplant substantive statutory law and must respect the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court's use of Article 142 to quash FIRs against NEET protesters in 2026 draws a strong parallel to its 1991 ruling in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat. In that case, the Court similarly invoked Article 142 alongside Article 32 to quash criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of legal processes and ensure the administration of justice. Both instances demonstrate how the Court uses its extraordinary curative powers to intervene in criminal matters when ordinary statutory remedies are deemed inadequate to balance the equities.

While Article 142 does not have a direct link to a specific event in the freedom struggle, its inclusion reflects the nationalist leadership's deep-seated commitment to establishing an independent, supreme judiciary capable of protecting citizens from executive excesses and ensuring absolute justice, which was a core aspiration of the Indian national movement.

The quashing of FIRs directly restores the dignity and future prospects of young protesters, preventing them from being branded as criminals, which would have barred them from government jobs and higher education. It also alleviates the immense psychological trauma, anxiety, and financial burden faced by their families, who were caught in a system of delayed justice.

The Supreme Court's intervention directly safeguards Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity, including the right to a livelihood and mental well-being) and Article 19(1)(a) & (b) (Freedom of Speech and Peaceful Assembly). It also aligns with Article 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which mandates the State to ensure equal justice and free legal aid, preventing poverty or youth vulnerability from becoming a barrier to justice.

As a District Magistrate, the primary ethical conflict would be balancing the maintenance of public order and rule of law (preventing disruptive protests) against protecting the democratic right to peaceful dissent and the future of young, anxious students. There is also a conflict between strict legalism (prosecuting protesters under statutory laws) and compassionate justice (recognizing the systemic failure of the exam system that triggered the protests).

The NEET-UG exam is a critical gateway for students from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and rural backgrounds who rely on merit to escape socio-economic marginalization. The paper leak disproportionately impacts these vulnerable aspirants who lack the financial resources to afford expensive coaching or buy leaked papers, while the subsequent criminalization of protests threatens to permanently derail their careers and livelihoods.