The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it intends to quash FIRs registered against students over protests held across the country last month over examination paper leaks and other alleged irregularities. The court, however, made it clear that the relief would not extend to people with a history of grievous offences who allegedly infiltrated the protests.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana stressed that the cases involved the future of thousands of students. The court's observations signal an attempt to distinguish students exercising their right to protest from people allegedly involved in serious criminal activity, while ensuring that allegations of violence during the demonstrations are independently examined, Live Law reports.
Students' Future Takes Centre Stage
The Chief Justice reiterated the court's intention to constitute a high-powered committee to examine issues arising from the violence during the student protests. He indicated that the panel would include a former Supreme Court judge, a former High Court judge and a former Director General of Police (DGP).
At the first hearing of the petitions, the court had also expressed its intention to form a committee to monitor the investigation into allegations of police violence.
The Chief Justice said the consent of a former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director and a former DGP, who is not from any of the states involved in the matter, had been obtained. The bench will pass orders after considering all aspects. The court also allowed the parties to submit written suggestions on the mandate and scope of the proposed committee.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the court that, barring 2,873 individuals facing grave cases involving offences such as murder, rape and abduction, cases against the others could be quashed.
"FIRs against student protestors must be quashed. How to do... your lordships can decide. Anti-social elements who infiltrated have to be probed," Mehta said.
Court Rejects Remorse Affidavit Call
Advocate Rizwan Ahmed, appearing for a petitioner opposing the withdrawal of cases against the protesters, argued that the students should file affidavits expressing remorse. He submitted that under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), protests fall into two categories, lawful and unlawful, and argued that participants in the July 20 Parliament march could not escape liability because the protest was unlawful.
The Chief Justice responded: "Criminality has to be seen with the object and purpose for which students gathered there. Let's not forget their right under Art. 19 right. So long as you don't violate the law and raise your voice peacefully, those cases are completely distinguishable from cases of hardened criminals."
Ahmed asked whether the students were seeking pardon or showing remorse and argued that the court's leniency could later be seen as weakness. He suggested that the students submit affidavits expressing remorse.
Justice Bagchi rejected the suggestion. "Not necessary," he said.
Highlighting the court's concern over the students' future, the Chief Justice said: "It's a question of life and future of innocent students. Even if there is outcry...they have legitimate expectation from system."
The exchange underlined the court's apparent view that participation in a protest should not automatically place students in the same category as people facing allegations of serious criminal conduct.
Online Threats, Police Conduct Under Lens
Another lawyer raised concerns over alleged online rape threats and sexually offensive messages received by women protesters. She submitted that the accounts of some women who participated in the protests had been taken down while those allegedly harassing them had faced no legal consequences.
She also alleged that the authorities had violated the Supreme Court's previous order barring the disclosure of protesters' digital data. The Chief Justice assured the court that the proposed high-powered committee would examine the issue.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that disciplinary action should be taken against police officers whose alleged acts of molestation of women protesters had been documented in video evidence. He submitted that action by the state should not have to await the committee's decision.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan supported Farasat's request and said an affidavit filed by the Delhi Police had admitted that officers in plainclothes and without name tags had used force against protesters.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan and Advocate Vrinda Grover made similar submissions on behalf of the protesters. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy also raised concerns over the use of facial recognition technology.
The Delhi and Bihar police have filed counter-affidavits denying the use of excessive force against protesters.
Court Had Earlier Opened Door To Withdrawal
On Aug 3, the Supreme Court clarified that states were free to close or withdraw FIRs against students over their participation in the protests in accordance with law.
The clarification related to a July 28 order in which the court had said states could continue investigations into the FIRs. The court issued the clarification after petitioners pointed out that the July 28 order could impede the withdrawal of FIRs, which they said was a commitment made by the Union to Cockroach Janata Party leaders as a condition for ending the protests.
The latest hearing builds on that position, with the court now indicating more clearly that students without serious criminal backgrounds should not have their futures jeopardised merely because cases were registered against them during the protests.
What The Petitions Allege
The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions alleging excessive use of police force against students who participated in protests across the country from July 20 over examination paper leaks and other alleged irregularities.
The petitions concern incidents in Delhi, Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala. Separate petitions have also been filed on behalf of injured police personnel and media persons.
At an earlier hearing, the court observed that the allegations prima facie made out a case for an independent and impartial investigation. It indicated that it could constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a former Supreme Court judge and sought responses from the Union, Delhi Government and the states concerned.
Mehta had also accepted the court's suggestion for an independent investigation monitored by a retired judge appointed by the court.
Also Watch:
Digital Evidence Ordered Preserved
The Supreme Court directed the preservation of CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records and Police Control Room (PCR) logs relating to the protests.
It also ordered the authorities to preserve the protesters' personal information and digital data and directed that such information not be disclosed or published for the time being.
While allowing the states and the Delhi Government to continue investigations into FIRs registered over the protests, the court directed that no coercive action be taken against protesting students who have no criminal antecedents.
The court further directed all states to release children below the age of 18 who had been detained or arrested in connection with the protests and had no criminal antecedents. Where necessary, they could be released after the execution of a simple bond by the children or their family members.
Taken together, the court's observations put the students' future at the heart of the proceedings while keeping the door open for investigation of serious offences. At the same time, the proposed committee could bring allegations against both protesters and police conduct under independent scrutiny.
