New Delhi, Sept. 3 -- The Supreme Court's decision to quash criminal cases arising from student protests over the NEET controversy raises a question extending far beyond one examination: who is accountable when criminal law is invoked against citizens without sufficient justification? Courts can eventually strike down an FIR, but judicial relief cannot erase everything preceding it. For a student, merely being named in a criminal case can mean visits to police stations and courts, legal expenses, anxiety over education and employment, and the stigma of being treated as an accused. The process itself can consequently become punishment even when prosecution ultimately leads nowhere. This becomes particularly troubling when criminal law enters spaces of peaceful protest. Students have every right to question institutions, demand transparency and demonstrate against decisions affecting their futures, provided their actions remain within the law. Disagreement, sloganeering or participation in peaceful demonstrations cannot automatically be treated as conduct deserving criminal prosecution. Democracy requires authorities to distinguish between dissent that is inconvenient and conduct that is genuinely unlawful.
That distinction becomes meaningless if there are no consequences for getting it wrong. An FIR may represent only the beginning of an investigation, but its consequences are hardly preliminary for the person named in it. Once criminal law begins moving, an individual can face investigation, possible arrest, bail proceedings and prolonged uncertainty. The imbalance becomes particularly stark when students confront the power of the State. Quashing an unjustified FIR therefore repairs only part of the damage. Institutional accountability must accompany judicial correction. This does not mean police officers should face punishment whenever a court disagrees with an investigation; policing frequently requires difficult decisions. But meaningful scrutiny is necessary where courts find that basic ingredients of an alleged offence were absent, criminal provisions were disproportionately applied, or prosecution appeared primarily intended to suppress legitimate expression. Senior officers should review questionable cases, departments should examine repeated misuse of provisions, and governments should establish safeguards for handling student demonstrations. Where deliberate or reckless misuse is established, responsibility must be fixed.
Criminal law must remain an instrument of justice, not administrative convenience. India does not lack provisions to deal with violence, destruction of property, intimidation or genuine threats to public order. Those committing such acts must face lawful consequences. But stretching criminality to encompass peaceful opposition weakens public confidence in institutions meant to enforce the law impartially. Universities and examination systems are particularly sensitive environments: young citizens confronting perceived unfairness should encounter mechanisms for dialogue and grievance redressal before encountering police cases. Courts remain an essential constitutional safeguard when executive action crosses legal boundaries, but judicial intervention should be the last defence, not the routine mechanism for correcting avoidable excesses. The lesson from the NEET protest cases must therefore extend beyond celebrating their quashing. A justice system should ask not only whether an unjustified prosecution can eventually be stopped, but why it was allowed to begin. Until institutions are required to answer that question, wrongful FIRs will continue imposing penalties long before any court determines whether a crime was ever committed.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.