NEW DELHI, Aug. 3 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that the Delhi government and other state governments are free to close or withdraw first information reports (FIRs) filed against protesters involved in recent student demonstrations led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and other locations across the country.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said its July 28 order permitting the prosecution of protesters with “criminal antecedents” was intended to apply only to those accused of grave and serious offenses. The court clarified that the phrase “criminal antecedents” should be interpreted in that limited context.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions related to allegations of excessive police force used on July 20 against students protesting examination paper leaks.
The clarification followed submissions by lawyers representing several petitioners, who argued that authorities were using the earlier order to keep cases pending against individuals whose records involved only minor offenses, such as traffic violations or participation in previous protests.
At the start of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that while the government stood by its assurance to facilitate the withdrawal of cases against students, there was confusion regarding the legal procedure.
Mehta said criminal law does not provide for the withdrawal of an FIR itself. Instead, authorities could file a closure report, seek withdrawal of the prosecution, or move the appropriate court to quash the proceedings.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged the bench to clarify the meaning of “criminal antecedents,” arguing that students should not be denied relief because of minor infractions, including traffic violations.
In response, Mehta said some of the accused were facing serious charges, including murder and rape.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan raised concerns about the alleged use of facial recognition technology and biometric surveillance to identify protesters. He argued that participants had not consented to the use of their biometric data and said the issue warranted judicial review.
Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan called for action against police officers allegedly involved in excessive force, citing videos that purportedly showed violence by officers.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said officers responsible for brutality should be held accountable.
“A police officer involved in excessive force should not be unduly protected. And it should not be that a hardened criminal under the garb of student protest is also getting protected,” he said.
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover referred to a separate pending petition concerning the use of pellet guns, arguing that her research had found no legal or administrative authorization permitting their use against civilian protesters.
The chief justice responded that the court intends to establish guidelines governing the circumstances and manner in which pellet guns may be used.
The bench also said it is considering forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of police officers or appointing a committee headed by a retired judge to investigate allegations of police misconduct.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on Aug. 18.
The petitions before the court allege excessive police action against students who participated in demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere over examination paper leaks. Families of injured police officers have also petitioned the court, seeking action against protesters accused of assaulting police personnel.
The July 20 march to Parliament, organized by the Cockroach Janata Party after weeks of protests and a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, drew thousands of students demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination paper leaks and broader reforms to the examination system.
As demonstrators attempted to breach police barricades in central Delhi while marching toward Parliament, police used tear gas and baton charges to disperse the crowd. Videos shared on social media appeared to show protesters being manhandled by police.
Delhi Police defended its actions, saying force was used only after sections of the crowd became violent and allegedly engaged in stone-throwing. (ANI)
About The Author
