Student Protests: Supreme Court Says States Can Close FIRs, Limits 'Criminal Antecedents' To Grave Offences

The Supreme Court on Aug 3 clarified that Delhi and other States are free to close or withdraw first information reports (FIRs), in accordance with law, against students involved in the recent protests, while excluding those with grave and heinous criminal antecedents from the protection.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana clarified its July 28 order after petitioners argued that the earlier direction could create hurdles in withdrawing cases against students. The Court said the expression “criminal antecedents” used in that order should be read as referring to “grave and heinous offences”, rather than petty offences or minor violations, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.

Relief For Students Facing Petty Cases

“It is clarified for July 28 order that NCT of Delhi and any other State shall be at liberty to close/withdraw FIRs against protesters. The word criminal antecedents is to be read as grave and heinous offences,” the Court said.

The clarification is significant because the July 28 order had allowed investigations into FIRs to continue while protecting students without criminal antecedents from coercive action. Petitioners told the Court that the broad expression could be used to deny protection even to students facing cases involving minor offences, such as driving violations or earlier protests.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought clarification of the expression, saying its ambiguity could cause harassment to students with petty cases against them.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also pointed to ambiguity in the earlier order, saying investigations could continue even though coercive action had been prohibited.

The Court’s clarification draws a clearer distinction between students facing minor cases and people with serious criminal records. It also addresses concerns that a broadly worded exception could dilute the protection granted to protesters.

Government Says It Will Honour Commitment

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Court that the government was serious about its commitment to address cases against student protesters, but there was some confusion over the legal process because criminal law does not provide for simply “withdrawing” an FIR.

He said options included filing closure reports, seeking withdrawal of prosecution or approaching courts for quashing of cases.

“Barring those with criminal antecedents, the government is prepared to address the cases against the student protesters. Let them sit with the government. There are some people who want to keep the pot boiling so we have to be cautious about the legal advice,” Mehta said.

He told the Court that he had discussed the issue with Advocate Vrinda Grover and sought a few days to finalise the response. He also agreed to share a chart detailing the FIRs.

Grover told the Court that filing individual applications for withdrawal of prosecution could become a tedious process and would remain subject to judicial approval. Referring to an FIR in Patna that named more than 5,000 unidentified people, she argued that such “catch-all” FIRs could potentially be used against anyone.

Justice Bagchi observed that the Court could “engineer” a process for quashing the FIRs.

Police Excesses Under Scanner

The proceedings also focused on allegations of excessive police force during the protests.

Sankaranarayanan sought action against named police officers whose alleged acts of violence, he said, had been captured on video.

“A direction has to go to the Commissioner of Police and the RAF Director to ask them how you permitted pellet guns and lathi charge. The police cannot be permitted to act like this,” he submitted, asking that responsibility be fixed.

The Chief Justice made it clear that police personnel found to have used excessive force should not receive undue protection, while also stressing that serious offenders should not be able to claim protection merely because they participated in a student protest.

“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,” the Chief Justice said.

That approach attempts to balance two competing concerns before the Court: protecting peaceful protesters from excessive police action while ensuring that the protection is not extended to people facing grave criminal allegations.

Facial Recognition Use Questioned

Senior Advocate N Hariharan raised concerns over the alleged use of facial recognition technology to identify protesters.

“The only way the government has identified all the protest goers is by using facial recognition technology. This needs to be examined. We have not given consent for use of our biometric data,” he submitted.

The petitions have also raised concerns about the preservation and use of protesters’ personal information and digital data.

The Court had earlier directed authorities to preserve CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records and Police Control Room logs connected with the protests. It had also ordered authorities to preserve protesters’ personal information and digital data and not disclose or publish such information for the time being.

Court To Frame Pellet Gun Protocol

The use of pellet guns during the protests emerged as another major issue.

Grover told the Court that her research had found no document authorising the use of pellet guns against civilian protesters. She said pellet guns had been used in Kashmir in 2010 but there was no standing order by Delhi Police authorising their use in such circumstances.

The Chief Justice said the Court would frame a comprehensive protocol governing when and how pellet guns could be used.

“We would like to lay down a complete protocol on how and where it can be used,” the Bench observed.

The proposed protocol could become an important part of the case because the petitions seek broader, pan-India standards governing the use of force during public demonstrations.

SIT Or Retired Judge-Led Panel?

The Court is also considering how allegations of police excesses should be investigated.

The Bench said it was considering either a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of police officers or a committee headed by a retired judge.

“There are two things in our mind. One is a SIT of police officers to investigate or to have a committee headed by a retired judge,” the Bench said.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan suggested appointing a former Chief Justice of India to monitor the SIT.

At the previous hearing, the Court had observed that the allegations prima facie made out a case for an independent and impartial investigation. It had indicated that it could constitute an SIT headed by a former Supreme Court judge and sought responses from the Union, the Delhi Government and the States concerned.

Mehta had accepted the Court’s suggestion for an independent investigation monitored by a retired judge appointed by the Court.

The Court has, however, decided to wait for responses from the governments concerned before taking a final decision.

Assault On Advocate Flagged

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves raised the alleged assault on an advocate at Nizamuddin Police Station when he went there to meet detained protesters.

Advocate Manik Gupta has alleged that he was assaulted and abused at the police station on July 23 after responding to distress calls from detained students.

Gonsalves told the Court that the allegation raised a serious issue affecting the administration of justice.

Another petitioner, Junaid Malik, who volunteered to distribute food and water during the protests, has alleged that Delhi Police personnel illegally detained and intimidated him, accessed his mobile phone and later abandoned him near the Dehradun-Mussoorie Road. He has also alleged coercive police action against his family members.

What Sparked The Protests?

The batch of petitions stems from student protests over repeated examination question paper leaks and other alleged irregularities.

The protests, called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), began in June and later spread to several States. Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation and began a hunger strike in solidarity. He was later taken from the protest site to a hospital by Delhi Police over concerns about his health and ended his 26-day hunger strike at Medanta Hospital late on July 23.

The agitation intensified during the “Sansad Chalo” march on July 20. The material placed before the Court alleges that Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force used baton charge, tear gas and pellet guns against protesters.

The petitions concern incidents in Delhi, Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala. Petitions have also been filed on behalf of injured police personnel and media persons.

The allegations before the Court include the use of pellet guns and shock batons, injuries to protesters, violence by police personnel in plain clothes, alleged molestation of women protesters and the use of lathis with nails. Allegations concerning police action in Bihar and the detention of minors have also been raised.

Some petitions, meanwhile, seek action against protesters over injuries allegedly sustained by police personnel during the demonstrations.

Also Watch:

Minors Protected From Coercive Action

At the July 28 hearing, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against protesting students without criminal antecedents.

It also directed all States to release children below 18 detained or arrested in connection with the protests if they had no criminal antecedents, if necessary on execution of a simple bond by them or their family members.

The Court, however, did not stop investigations into FIRs arising from the protests.

The distinction became central to Monday’s hearing, with petitioners arguing that continuing investigations alongside an undefined “criminal antecedents” exception could leave students facing minor cases vulnerable.

The latest clarification narrows that exception to grave and heinous offences and gives governments the liberty, subject to law, to close or withdraw cases against protesters.

Pleas Seek Nationwide Policing Standards

One petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks regulation of police action during public protests, including a ban on deploying plainclothes personnel for crowd-control duties and guidelines governing prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The petition also seeks an independent investigation into the July 20 police action in Delhi and alleges that at least 60 protesters were injured.

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha has separately sought registration of FIRs over alleged police brutality and disproportionate action against protesters between July 20 and July 25.

Jha has sought State-level SIT investigations comprising the Director General of Police and two senior women Indian Police Service officers not below the rank of Inspector General, guided by a retired High Court judge and monitored by the Supreme Court.

He has also sought pan-India guidelines or uniform national standards governing the use of force during public demonstrations.

The breadth of the petitions means the case now extends beyond the immediate question of FIRs against student protesters. The Court’s consideration of pellet guns, surveillance, police accountability and uniform standards for crowd control could determine how authorities handle similar protests in the future.

The Supreme Court will hear the matter next on Aug 18.