The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that its five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC), constituted to examine the July protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), cannot direct the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) in connection with the demonstrations. The court made it clear that the authority to order criminal investigations rests with the judiciary and cannot be exercised independently by a fact-finding committee. The clarification sets limits on the committee's mandate while keeping judicial oversight over any potential criminal proceedings.

The court's observation came during proceedings concerning the functioning and powers of the HPEC, which was constituted to examine incidents surrounding the July protests. The committee has been tasked with looking into the circumstances of the demonstrations and related events and is expected to submit its findings within the framework laid down by the Supreme Court. However, the bench distinguished between conducting an inquiry and exercising judicial powers that can have direct consequences under criminal law.

The Supreme Court specifically said that the committee cannot itself order police authorities to register FIRs against individuals in connection with incidents under its consideration. Registration of an FIR can set a criminal investigation in motion, potentially leading to questioning, collection of evidence, arrests and prosecution. By reserving the power to direct such action for the court, the bench ensured that decisions carrying those consequences remain subject to judicial scrutiny rather than being made solely by members of the enquiry panel.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Strict Enforcement Of Law On Wearing Seat Belts

The clarification also defines the limits of the HPEC's role. The committee can examine evidence, record relevant material and investigate the circumstances surrounding the protests within the scope of its mandate. Its findings may subsequently assist the court in assessing what further action, if any, is warranted. However, the panel cannot convert its fact-finding exercise into an independent criminal investigation or direct law-enforcement agencies to begin proceedings. Any requirement for an FIR or a criminal probe would therefore have to be considered and ordered by the competent court.

The July protests led by the CJP have attracted judicial attention amid allegations and disputes concerning events surrounding the demonstrations. The creation of the HPEC was intended to provide an independent mechanism for examining the issues placed before the Supreme Court. The latest clarification is important because it prevents an overlap between the committee's investigative or fact-finding responsibilities and the court's judicial authority. It also provides greater clarity to the panel and parties involved about what actions fall within the committee's remit.

At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed to expedite proceedings before the committee. The bench indicated that it would address difficulties arising during the inquiry and said it would “iron out” any creases that emerge. The court's willingness to speed up the process suggests that it wants the committee's work to proceed without unnecessary procedural delays while maintaining appropriate judicial supervision. The clarification on FIRs is therefore accompanied by an effort to ensure that the inquiry itself moves forward efficiently.

The Supreme Court's latest order establishes a clear division between the committee's fact-finding function and the judiciary's authority to initiate or direct criminal action. The HPEC can continue examining the July protests and place its findings before the court, but it cannot independently order FIRs. If the inquiry produces material suggesting that criminal proceedings may be necessary, the matter will have to return to the court for an appropriate decision. The ruling thus keeps the committee's work within its defined mandate while ensuring that any decision to trigger criminal investigations remains under judicial control.

Also Read: Supreme Court Says “All Treated Equally” In Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case