Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a three-judge bench on Monday that the government remained committed to its undertaking that First Information Reports would not be pursued against students. He said cases involving more than 2,700 people accused of serious crimes would, however, continue.
“The government stands by its promise; there will be no FIRs against the students,” Mehta told the court during the hearing of petitions concerning police action against demonstrators.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, clarified that Delhi and other state governments were free to close or withdraw cases registered against students who participated in the protests. The protection would not cover people accused of grave and heinous crimes.
The court narrowed the meaning of “criminal antecedents” used in its previous order, saying the expression should apply only to serious offences. The clarification was intended to ensure that minor cases or protest-related accusations did not prevent students from receiving relief.
Mehta said the government would not support withdrawal where accused persons had previous involvement in offences such as murder, rape or crimes covered by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The distinction addressed concerns that a broad exemption based on criminal history could deny protection to demonstrators facing less serious allegations.
The hearing arose from nationwide demonstrations over the alleged leak of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test question paper and wider concerns about the management of competitive examinations. The agitation intensified in July and included a major gathering at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, followed by attempts to march towards Parliament.
Clashes were reported between protesters and security personnel in the capital and several states. Demonstrators accused police of using excessive force, including baton charges, pellet guns and electric batons. Authorities maintained that crowd-control measures became necessary after violence broke out and police officers were attacked.
The Supreme Court had intervened on July 28 after petitions alleged serious violations during the protests. It ordered the immediate release of detained participants below the age of 18 and directed that no coercive action be taken against eligible protesters while the legal questions were examined.
The court also instructed authorities to preserve CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-camera material, wireless communications and other digital evidence connected with the demonstrations. Personal information collected from protesters was not to be disclosed publicly.
Chief Justice Kant said allegations of violence against students, journalists, lawyers and women demonstrators required an independent and fair examination. The petitions referred to injuries caused by alleged pellet-gun use, assaults by personnel in civilian clothing and the reported hospitalisation of protesters.
The Central Government and Delhi Police have disputed claims that the security response was one-sided. Mehta informed the court during the earlier hearing that about 250 police personnel had been injured during the agitation. He supported an inquiry capable of determining responsibility on both sides.
The bench has maintained that peaceful protest is protected under the constitutional framework but cannot shield criminal conduct. It has also said that police excesses cannot be justified merely because an agitation is under way.
Notices were issued to senior officials in Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, where significant incidents were reported. The governments were asked to place their versions of the events before the court.
The petitions include demands for a judicial commission led by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the alleged use of disproportionate force. Another plea seeks a neutral and time-bound inquiry into attacks on journalists covering the demonstrations.
The court’s clarification allows each state administration to assess the cases registered within its jurisdiction. Cases involving peaceful participation, unlawful assembly or minor protest-related allegations may be closed, subject to the applicable legal process.
The order does not automatically cancel every FIR. State governments must initiate the required procedures for withdrawal, while courts handling individual cases may have to approve the action under criminal law.
(IPA Service)
