The 52-page petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by former Air Force officer Maneesh Kumar Solanki, seeks a declaration that the Union government and state governments cannot grant collective pardon, amnesty or immunity to people accused of rioting merely because an understanding was reached with protest organisers.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday tagged the plea with a batch of petitions arising from the student agitation. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana is scheduled to consider the connected matters on August 18.
Solanki filed the petition through Advocate-on-Record Pulkit Agarwal. The Union government, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Delhi Police Commissioner, all states and Union Territories have been named as respondents.
The challenge follows assurances given after CJP representatives agreed on July 25 to end nationwide demonstrations over examination irregularities. The government had promised to withdraw police cases against participating students, alongside commitments on examination reforms and compensation for affected families.
The agitation had intensified after paper leaks forced about two million candidates to sit another national examination. Protests culminated in a July 20 march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament, where demonstrators clashed with security personnel. Tear gas and baton charges were used, people on both sides were injured and several participants, including minors, were detained.
The petitioner has stressed that reports of an agreement to withdraw first information reports have not been independently verified. The plea asks the court to examine the existence, terms and legal authority of any such arrangement rather than accept public claims as established facts.
Its central argument is that prosecution cannot be abandoned as part of a broad political bargain. Decisions involving pardon, remission or withdrawal must consider the allegations, available evidence, public interest and conduct attributed to each accused person, the petition says.
The plea also seeks an interim order preventing governments from withdrawing rioting-related prosecutions arising from the June and July demonstrations solely because of an understanding with the CJP until the court decides the case.
The Supreme Court had clarified on August 3 that states remained free to close or withdraw cases against student protesters in accordance with law. It said an earlier reference to protesters with “criminal antecedents” concerned those accused of grave or heinous offences, rather than every person previously named in a criminal case.
That clarification was welcomed by the CJP, which urged the Union government and BJP-led states to implement the July 25 assurances without delay. The organisation has maintained that students involved in peaceful demonstrations should not face repeated court appearances or prolonged criminal proceedings.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had also adopted a conciliatory position, describing students who used offensive language during the agitation as misled youngsters who required guidance rather than punishment. He said forcing them to spend years attending courts would not address the causes of their anger.
The new petition distinguishes between peaceful participants and people allegedly involved in stone-throwing, vandalism or attacks on police. Counsel Rizwan Ahmed told the bench that offenders accused of violence could not automatically escape prosecution because the government had reached a settlement with movement representatives.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, however, underlined the need for restraint when authorities deal with young demonstrators. He observed that aggressive state action could worsen tensions and said counselling and dialogue could prevent students from turning to violence.
Beyond the challenge to withdrawal of cases, the petitioner has sought a mechanism to identify protesters accused of directing abusive, derogatory or defamatory language at police and security personnel. Identification should be based on video recordings, photographs and other credible evidence, the plea says.
Rather than demanding imprisonment for such conduct, it proposes supervised community service as a restorative measure. Suggested assignments include sanitation work or service at temples, gurdwaras, mosques and other public places, with the duration and nature of the work determined by the competent authority.
Minors identified through verified evidence should be dealt with by Juvenile Justice Boards under the Juvenile Justice Act, while adults could undertake community service under the supervision of local police stations or another authority designated by the court.
(IPA Service)
