Compare the Union government's response to the Cockroach Janta Party protests with its handling of the farmer protests and anti-CAA protests. What does this reveal about selective accommodation of dissent in India?

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order "necessary for doing complete justice" [1]. Its invocation in September 2026 — on the Union government's own plea — to quash FIRs against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protesters marks a sharp departure from the State's response to the farmer and anti-CAA agitations.

Accommodation of the CJP protests (2026)

• Negotiated settlement: the Centre conceded a five-point examination-reform package and compensation, ending the agitation within seven weeks.
• Direct accountability: the Union Education Minister resigned on 25 July 2026 — a rare protest-driven ministerial exit.
• Legal amnesty: the State itself moved the Court under Article 142 [1] to erase FIRs and bar fresh ones.
• The grievance was administrative, not ideological — exam integrity, already acknowledged in the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 [3], amid youth unemployment of 9.9% in 2025 [2].

The farmer and anti-CAA contrast

• Farmer protests (2020-21): repeal came only after a year-long border blockade, via the Farm Laws Repeal Act, 2021 [4]; no minister resigned and no blanket withdrawal of cases followed.
• Anti-CAA protests (2019-20): the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 [5] was neither paused nor renegotiated; the response was largely prosecutorial, with cases against several protesters continuing in courts for years.

What the contrast reveals

• Accommodation tracks the political cost of conceding, not the legitimacy of the grievance: an implementation failure is reversible, whereas core legislative agenda is defended.
• Protester identity matters — a youth, non-partisan, merit-centred movement is read as apolitical; identity- and livelihood-based mobilisations as adversarial.
• Amnesty flowing from executive discretion rather than uniform rules unsettles equality before law under Article 14 and the right to assemble under Article 19(1)(b) [1].

Selective magnanimity secures peace in one instance but weakens the credibility of dissent-handling overall. A rules-based framework — time-bound grievance redress, standardised policing of peaceful protest, and legislative pre-consultation — would let the State respond to all dissent with the same constitutional consistency, making Article 142 a supplement to justice rather than a substitute for it.