Supreme Court Declines to Block CJP’s September 5 Delhi March, Cites Law and Order Jurisdiction

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to issue an injunction against a proposed protest march in the capital scheduled for September 5 by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant ruled that the responsibility for managing law and order and determining the legality of such demonstrations rests solely with the Centre and the Delhi government.

The court maintained that there were “no compelling circumstances” to justify a preemptive ban on the mobilization, emphasizing its expectation that all stakeholders would remain peaceful and operate within the bounds of the law.

“We have no reason to doubt that everyone will behave in a peaceful and lawful manner,” the bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, observed. “As of now, there are no compelling circumstances before us to presume or assume anything otherwise.”

Legal Challenges and Security Concerns

The hearing stemmed from pleas filed by Shivam Upadhyay and a retired Delhi police officer, Rajendra Singh. The petitioners sought to restrict large-scale demonstrations in security-sensitive zones of Lutyens’ Delhi, specifically the India Gate and Central Vista areas. Furthermore, they urged the court to postpone the march until after the upcoming BRICS Summit, citing concerns that any potential unrest during the international gathering—scheduled for September 12 and 13—would invite negative global scrutiny.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the CJP had announced the march without obtaining the necessary police permits, a move they claimed could lead to lawlessness. However, the bench remained firm in its decision to refrain from intervening in matters of administrative policing.

“This has to be considered in some other quarter. It is not for us to intervene,” the court stated, clarifying that its judicial domain is separate from the day-to-day enforcement of public order. The judges did, however, note that petitioners could return to the court if a demonstrably “alarming” situation were to arise.

Context of the Unrest

The September 5 protest is being organized by the families of students who died by suicide following the cancellation and subsequent re-test of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). The demonstrators allege that the Centre failed to honor assurances provided on July 25, which had led to the temporary suspension of a 36-day agitation at Jantar Mantar.

The protest has garnered support from the All India Students’ Association (AISA), which is demanding an inquiry into allegations of police brutality—including the use of pellet guns and tear gas—during the July 20 crackdown.

Role of the High-Powered Enquiry Committee

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to micromanage the upcoming march is partly due to the ongoing work of the high-powered enquiry committee (HPEC), led by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Constituted on August 18, the HPEC is tasked with investigating competing allegations from the July 20 protest, ranging from the proportionality of police action to claims of damage to public property and violence by protesters. The committee, which includes former judges and retired police leadership, is currently overseeing the review of digital evidence, including CCTV and drone footage, and will operate under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court.

The bench directed the petitioners to submit their representations to the HPEC, labeling the committee as a “neutral umpire” that will provide the court with recommendations for potential future action. The matter is posted for further review on September 10.