Discuss the scope of Article 142 of the Constitution and examine whether its invocation to quash criminal FIRs by the police itself sets a sound precedent.

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order "necessary for doing complete justice" in a pending cause, enforceable throughout India [1]. Its invocation on 31 August 2026 to quash FIRs against student protesters reopens the debate on this extraordinary power's limits [3].

Scope of Article 142

• A supplementary, plenary power to fill gaps where ordinary law is silent or procedurally inadequate; available to the Supreme Court alone, not High Courts [1].
• Expansively used — the Union Carbide (1991) Bhopal settlement, dissolution of marriages on irretrievable breakdown, and transfer of pending cases to end litigation.
• Judicially self-limited: Prem Chand Garg (1963) requires consistency with fundamental rights, and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) held it cannot supplant substantive statutory law or usurp another authority's jurisdiction.

Arguments supporting the invocation

• Multiple FIRs across police stations arising from one agitation are best closed by a single order, avoiding multiplicity and prolonged harassment of students [3].
• Charges of rioting and attempt to murder against exam-reform protesters appear disproportionate; withdrawal protects the right to assemble peaceably under Article 19(1)(b) [1].
• Consistent with the Court's own restraint in refusing to pre-emptively ban the 5 September march, treating law and order as the police's domain [4].

Why the precedent is weak

• FIR quashing ordinarily lies with High Courts' inherent power under Section 528, BNSS 2023 (earlier Section 482 CrPC), on case-specific scrutiny; a blanket order bypasses this graded process [2].
• The State has a statutory route — withdrawal from prosecution with the court's permission — which builds in judicial application of mind [2].
• Police seeking quashing of its own FIRs raises accountability questions: were the grave charges justified when registered, and are complaints of excess now foreclosed?
• Invocation under political pressure risks converting a constitutional safety valve into an executive shortcut.

Article 142 is best understood as a remedy of last resort, not a parallel criminal procedure. The Court should use the occasion to lay down guidelines confining such quashing to cases where the ordinary route is genuinely inadequate, while separately directing scrutiny of the crackdown. Reconciling Article 21 fairness with Article 19 freedoms in this manner would strengthen both dissent and the rule of law.