The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on Tuesday issued an ultimatum to the union government, accusing it of “trying to betray” the country’s youth over FIRs registered against students who protested at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar last month.
CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said in a post on X that while the Supreme Court sought a consolidated list of FIRs against students to quash, the lawyers representing the centre resisted.
“The Government of India is trying to betray the youth of this nation. During today’s hearing, the Supreme Court made its intention very clear: it sought a list of FIRs registered against students and protesters across the country from the Union Government so that it can quash all of them at one go, in exercise of its powers under Article 142,” Das wrote, sharing the video.
“The Court sought this information not once, not twice, but thrice. Yet, the Union Government’s lawyer did not commit to furnishing such a list and instead actively resisted it. But why?” he added.
Das said that the CJP had called off its protest on July 25 “in good faith” after the Government of India committed to withdrawing FIRs, protecting protesters from punitive action, and compensating affected families. But he said the centre is now resisting, even though the Supreme Court has laid out a path to fulfil one of those commitments.
“We will not permit the Government to play games with the trust of India’s students, Gen-Z and young citizens. CJP has exercised patience. We have negotiated in good faith. We called off our agitation in good faith. And we have given the Government sufficient opportunity to honour its commitments in good faith. That patience is now running out. And therefore we now warn the government,” the post further read.
CJP says it will decide on nationwide action in two days
Saurav Das warned that if the Government does not “immediately demonstrate concrete steps towards honouring the July 25 commitments”, the Cockroach Janta Party will convene its National Working Committee within the next two days to decide the next course of nationwide action.
“We hope the Government understands the seriousness of this moment. Do not mistake restraint for surrender. Do not mistake good faith for weakness. And do not play with the trust of an entire generation,” Das wrote.
He said that the CJP’s next course of action “will depend entirely” upon what the Government of India “chooses to do now.”
What the Supreme Court said
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to furnish details of FIRs implicating the student protesters, which are to be quashed.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana indicated that the court may exercise its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
“It is the life of students which is at stake. We have to consider this. They have a future ahead. They have the right to protest under Article 19,” the bench told a counsel, opposing quashing of cases against student protesters without them tendering an apology.
Mehta said police had identified more than 2,800 “anti-social elements”, who had been involved in heinous offences in the past, as responsible for the violence during the July 20 protest.
Senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy, Vrinda Grover and N Hariharan, appearing for several victims of violence, said that police were not authorised to use surveillance techniques, facial recognition and other digital tracking methods and store data with a private entity, as it was a violation of their privacy.
The bench said the constitutional questions concerning facial recognition technology, surveillance, privacy and Article 21 will ultimately be decided by the court itself, and not by the committee.
“The committee will only examine the factual questions, including whether the use of force was excessive. Pursuant to its report, the larger legal and constitutional questions concerning facial recognition technology will be considered by this court,” it said.
Mehta clarified that the facial recognition technique used by the police does not scan the faces of all persons, but flags only those who were previously involved in a heinous crime and whose data is available with the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).
