SC uses special powers to quash CJP FIRs. What's Article 142 also used for Babri land?

The Supreme Court invoked its exclusive special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs against protesters in the CJP-led agitation. The same "complete justice" power was used in the Ayodhya verdict to allot land for a mosque. Here's more about how the special power works, and if it's limitless.

In Short

• SC invoked Article 142 to quash FIRs against protesters in the NEET agitation
• The same SC power secured five acres for a mosque in 2019 Ayodhya verdict
• Article 142 can fill legal gaps but can never override the Constitution or rights

"A wrong committed must be remedied," the Supreme Court said in 2019 as it invoked Article 142 to order the allotment of five acres of land in Ayodhya for a mosque after awarding the disputed site for the construction of the Ram temple. Four years later, in 2023, the Supreme Court used the same extraordinary and exclusive power to dissolve marriages that had irretrievably broken down, even though that was not expressly recognised as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Article 142 is now in the spotlight again. The Supreme Court on Monday invoked Article 142 to quash FIRs against students and youths who participated in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests over the NEET-UG 2026 question-paper leak. The protests were led by the CJP, which subsequently called off its proposed September 5 march in Delhi. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant ordered that the FIRs "will not be investigated, and will be closed for all intents and purposes".

The CJP protests in Delhi's Jantar Mantar triggered such demonstrations across India in late July after reports of the NEET-UG paper leak caused uproar. The CJP-led Parliament March on July 20 turned confrontational. Several instances of violence were reported in Central Delhi in which over 200 police personnel were injured. This led to the Delhi Police detaining and lodging criminal cases against many protesters in Delhi and other states.

The withdrawal of the cases on protesters was one of the conditions the CJP had placed before the Centre for ending its agitation and cancelling its proposed September 5 march in Delhi.

Following negotiations with the protesters, the Centre agreed not to pursue the FIRs or register fresh cases arising from demonstrations between July 20 and 25. Then, the Centre, Delhi Police and the governments of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal asked the Supreme Court to close the cases, citing the students' future and the broader public interest. The Supreme Court used Article 142 to do so.

So, what's Article 142 all about?

Article 142 of the Constitution exclusively allows the Supreme Court to "pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it". Such an order is enforceable throughout India. The power is exclusive to the Supreme Court and enables it to craft a remedy when ordinary statutory provisions might not provide one.

Is power limitless? We will discuss that too.

So, why and how was Article 142 used by the Supreme Court in quashing the CJP protests FIRs?

WHY SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE NEET PROTEST FIRs

The Centre approached the Supreme Court after it had earlier allowed the states to consider withdrawing cases against the NEET protesters. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the authorities wanted Article 142 to be invoked so that the cases could be closed comprehensively.

The request covered 13 FIRs registered against students and other young protesters during the CJP-led protests. The Bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, accepted the request and used its exclusive and special "complete justice" power to quash the cases placed before it.

The relief, however, was not intended to protect people accused of grave or heinous crimes. Law enforcement authorities were allowed to separately examine the involvement of 2,873 people who were said to have previous criminal records or suspected links to violence during the protests.

The court's intervention ensured that ordinary protesters would not have to face years of investigation or prosecution. It also brought the confrontation between the government and the CJP-led protest to a close, prompting the Abhijeet Dipke-led outfit to withdraw its proposed September 5 march.

HOW ARTICLE 142 WAS USED IN THE AYODHYA CASE

One of Article 142's most consequential uses came in the 2019 Ayodhya verdict. The Supreme Court awarded the once-disputed 2.77-acre site to the deity, Ram Lalla, and directed the government to create a trust for the construction of a Ram temple.

However, the court also recorded that Muslims had been unlawfully dispossessed of the mosque in 1949 and that its demolition on December 6, 1992, was an "egregious violation of the rule of law." It invoked Article 142 to direct the Centre or the Uttar Pradesh government to give the Sunni Central Waqf Board five acres at a prominent location in Ayodhya for constructing a mosque.

In December 1949, idols of Ram were "surreptitiously placed" inside the Babri Masjid, after which the authorities locked the premises and prevented Muslims from offering namaz there.

"Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law," the 2019 judgment said.

The five acres were not part of the disputed land ultimately awarded for the temple. It was an alternative means of remedy for the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which the Bench said was "an egregious violation of the rule of the rule of law".

FROM DIVORCE TO THE BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY, HOW ARTICLE 142 HAS ENSURED JUSTICE

In Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan in 2023, a Constitution Bench ruled that the Supreme Court could invoke Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It could also waive the waiting period prescribed for divorce by mutual consent when continuing the marriage would serve no purpose.

The provision was also used in the 1991 Union Carbide case to approve the settlement arising from the Bhopal gas disaster and quash related criminal proceedings against the company and its officials. However, the criminal-case portion of that decision was subsequently reviewed and reversed.

But Article 142 is not limitless. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it cannot override the Constitution, disregard fundamental rights or deprive people who were not heard of their substantive legal rights. It is meant to supplement the law and close gaps in exceptional cases. One must also note that Article 142 cannot be used to rewrite or replace laws enacted by Parliament.

So, by quashing the NEET protest FIRs, the Supreme Court used Article 142 to protect young protesters from prolonged criminal cases and deliver "complete justice". However, such broad powers must be used carefully and only in exceptional cases, as has been the norm.

- Ends