Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday clarified that no writ petition had been filed before the Supreme Court in connection with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and criticised what he described as “inaccurate” and “reckless” media reporting suggesting that the Court had refused to grant an urgent hearing in the matter.
Addressing the issue in open court, the CJI said that what had been brought before the Bench on July 22 was merely a letter representation referred to during oral mentioning and not a petition instituted under the Supreme Court rules. He emphasised that he had verified the position with the Registry, which confirmed that not a single page of a writ petition had been filed.
The Chief Justice observed that several media reports incorrectly stated that the Supreme Court had declined to list a petition challenging the alleged police action against student protestors. In the absence of a duly filed writ petition invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the representation could not have been treated as judicial proceedings or listed for hearing, he noted.
The clarification came in the backdrop of reports relating to proceedings on July 22, when Advocate Narendra Mishra had orally mentioned a representation before the Bench headed by the CJI. During the mentioning, the counsel alleged that Delhi Police and other security personnel deployed at Jantar Mantar had used excessive force against students protesting over examination paper leaks and sought urgent judicial intervention.
Counsel further requested directions to ensure the fair conduct of the NEET examination, sought structural reforms in the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA), and urged the Court to consider the dissolution of the examination body in view of repeated allegations of question paper leaks and irregularities. He also informed the Bench that video recordings allegedly depicting police excesses were available.
The Bench, however, declined to entertain the oral request at the mentioning stage. When counsel continued to press the issue after the Court had proceeded to the next matter and offered to show the video recordings, the Chief Justice indicated that the Court was not inclined to examine such material during oral mentioning proceedings.
Clarifying the legal position on Friday, CJI Surya Kant reiterated that there was a fundamental distinction between a representation made to the Court and a formally instituted writ petition. He observed that reporting the incident as a refusal to list a petition was factually incorrect because no proceedings had been initiated before the Supreme Court. Stressing the need for responsible court reporting, the Chief Justice remarked that the matter had been inaccurately portrayed despite there being no formal filing before the Registry.
The clarification came while the Bench was hearing another matter after Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned a separate case for listing. The CJI used the occasion to reiterate that judicial proceedings can commence only after a petition is properly instituted and placed before the Court in accordance with the prescribed procedure, underscoring that media reporting must accurately reflect the distinction between informal representations and formally instituted litigation.
The post CJI Surya Kant refutes media reports claiming Supreme Court rejected plea on CJP protests, says no writ petition was filed appeared first on India Legal.