Editorial

The Supreme Court’s indication that it may invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash First Information Reports against students who participated in the nationwide protests over the NEET-UG paper leaks is a welcome assertion of judicial wisdom. In a democracy, the right to peaceful protest is not a privilege granted by the state; it is a fundamental expression of citizenship. When young people, many of them first-time voters and aspirants to public service, take to the streets against systemic failures that threaten their futures, the state’s first response should not be the criminalisation of dissent.

The NEET-UG controversy exposed deep institutional rot. Paper leaks, alleged irregularities, and the subsequent political fallout, including the resignation of the then Education Minister, created a legitimate crisis of confidence among students. Protests followed. Some turned disorderly. Violence and property damage, wherever they occurred, cannot be condoned. Yet the mass registration of FIRs against largely peaceful demonstrators risked converting a legitimate grievance into a permanent stain on young lives. Criminal records can close doors to education, employment, and public service for years. The Court’s recognition that the “future of the students is at stake” is both pragmatic and humane.

By excluding those with serious criminal antecedents and directing a panel to examine allegations of police excesses, the Court has drawn a necessary distinction. Accountability is not a one-way street. If the state demands law-abiding conduct from citizens, it must also ensure that its own agencies act with restraint and proportionality. A high-powered inquiry into claims of police excesses during the protests is not an attack on the police; it is a safeguard for the rule of law itself.

Article 142 has been criticised at times for its expansive use. Here, however, its deployment serves a restorative purpose. Quashing FIRs in appropriate cases does not erase the seriousness of any proven violence; it prevents the indefinite criminalisation of protest. It also sends a signal to examining bodies and governments that institutional failures will invite public scrutiny, and that the answer to such scrutiny cannot be the routine filing of cases against the scrutinisers.

Ultimately, good sense has prevailed. The Supreme Court has reminded the nation that the purpose of the criminal justice system is not to chill democratic expression, but to protect both order and liberty. Students who protested in good faith against a compromised examination system should not carry the burden of that protest for the rest of their lives. A society that criminalises its youth for demanding fairness risks losing the very generation it claims to educate and employ. The Court’s approach restores a measure of balance. It is a decision that deserves measured appreciation.

The recent condemnation by BRICS environment ministers of the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as “unilateral, punitive, discriminatory and protectionist” is both timely and necessary. At a moment when the world needs genuine cooperation on climate change, the EU’s carbon border tax risks deepening the divide between developed and developing nations rather than bridging it.

CBAM seeks to impose a levy on carbon-intensive imports such as steel, cement, aluminium and fertilisers entering the European market. Its stated objective is to prevent “carbon leakage” and ensure that European industries are not undercut by cheaper, higher-emission production elsewhere. On paper, the logic appears tidy. In practice, it functions as a trade barrier that disproportionately burdens developing economies whose industrialisation pathways differ from those of the Global North.

BRICS nations—representing a significant share of the world’s population and economic growth—have correctly pointed out that the mechanism ignores the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, a cornerstone of the UN climate framework. Countries that industrialised earlier and contributed the bulk of historical emissions now seek to dictate the terms of decarbonisation for those still lifting millions out of poverty. This is not climate leadership; it is climate conditionality dressed as environmental virtue.

Equally important is the BRICS demand for substantially increased climate finance. Developing nations require affordable technology, concessional funding and capacity support to transition without sacrificing growth or energy security. Commitments made at successive COP summits remain largely unmet. Instead of delivering the promised finance, some developed economies are devising border measures that effectively tax the development process itself.

None of this implies that emerging economies should be excused from climate responsibility. India, China, Brazil and others have already made significant investments in renewable energy and have submitted increasingly ambitious nationally determined contributions. The issue is sequence and fairness. Unilateral border taxes that raise the cost of exports from the Global South while developed nations continue to enjoy the benefits of their earlier carbon-intensive growth will only breed resentment and weaken collective action.

True multilateralism requires that climate policy be negotiated, not imposed. CBAM, in its current form, bypasses that process. BRICS has done well to call it out. The European Union would do better to engage in genuine partnership—through technology transfer, scaled-up finance and flexible pathways—rather than fortifying its market behind a green tariff wall. Climate justice cannot be achieved by protectionism in ecological clothing.

• SAS Kirmani