The Supreme Court on Monday said the Centre appeared committed to ensuring that no legal action is pursued against students who participated in protests over the alleged examination paper leak, while observing that states are free to withdraw or close First Information Reports (FIRs) wherever legally permissible. The court also announced that it would constitute a high-powered committee, headed by a former Supreme Court judge, to investigate the events surrounding the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) march to Parliament on July 20, during which violence broke out.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the government remained committed to its assurance that no adverse action would be taken against students involved in the protests. Mehta said there had been "misapprehension or miscommunication" regarding the handling of FIRs but reiterated that the Centre stood by its commitment. The court noted that states, including Delhi, are at liberty to withdraw or close cases in accordance with the law.
The case relates to clashes that erupted during the CJP's march to Parliament, when protesters were subjected to tear gas and lathi-charge by police. The Chief Justice observed that while police personnel accused of using excessive force should not receive undue protection, individuals with serious criminal backgrounds should also not be allowed to misuse student protests for legal immunity. The court emphasised the need to distinguish genuine student protesters from those accused of grave criminal offences.
Also Read: BJP Compares Indira Gandhi's Emergency With PM Modi's Approach Towards Students
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Vrinda Grover sought clarity on whether FIRs registered against protesters in states including Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Uttar Pradesh would be withdrawn or quashed. She argued that the case concerned the future of young students and broader reforms to the education system. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi also sought clarification on the term "criminal antecedents", urging the court to exclude minor offences and cases arising out of political protests from its scope.
During the hearing, Mehta informed the Bench that authorities had identified 2,738 protesters with criminal antecedents through a combination of facial recognition, social media analysis and other investigative tools. In response, Singhvi raised concerns about privacy and the possible use of facial recognition technology. Mehta clarified that identification was not based solely on facial recognition. The Supreme Court subsequently clarified that the term "criminal antecedents" would apply only to those facing allegations involving grave and heinous offences. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on August 19.
Also Read: Students Question Fee Difference Between Delhi University And Allahabad University