NEW DELHI: In a significant relief for student protesters, the Supreme Court on Monday paved the way for the withdrawal or closure of cases filed during protests over the alleged NEET paper leak, saying students should not face prosecution that could disrupt their education or future.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana clarified its July 28 order, which had stayed coercive action against student protesters while allowing police investigations to continue. The clarification came amid concerns that pending FIRs could adversely affect students even if no immediate action was taken.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the Centre was committed to honouring its assurance on withdrawing cases against genuine student protesters and was working on the legal modalities.
“The government is serious about honouring the commitment on withdrawal of cases against student protesters. We are discussing the modalities of dropping cases,” Mehta said.
However, he clarified that the benefit would not extend to 2,738 individuals with criminal antecedents who were allegedly involved in the protests. According to the Centre, these individuals, accused in serious offences such as murder, rape and crimes under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, had infiltrated the demonstrations and engaged in violence and vandalism.
The bench said the exclusion would apply only to those accused of heinous offences and not to individuals facing petty or politically motivated cases.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 18.
Emphasising the need to protect students’ academic futures, CJI Kant said their cases should be treated differently to ensure they remain in the educational mainstream.
“The parents are spending their hard-earned money on their children’s education. We must not overlook their expectations. If students are unnecessarily dragged into police and court proceedings, it will serve no useful purpose,” the CJI observed.
Mehta agreed, saying the government would soon finalise the process for withdrawing or closing cases against genuine student protesters. He cautioned, however, that legal steps must be taken carefully to prevent misuse.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that once all parties were in agreement, the court could facilitate a mechanism to ensure FIRs did not continue to hang over students’ heads.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover informed the court that representatives of the protesters were in discussions with the Centre to evolve a mutually acceptable mechanism for dropping cases. She referred to an FIR in Patna naming 142 people along with 5,000 unidentified persons, arguing that such “catch-all” FIRs could allow authorities to implicate individuals arbitrarily in the future. She urged the court to develop a comprehensive framework.
Justice Bagchi suggested several legal options, including filing closure reports, withdrawing prosecutions through public prosecutors or quashing FIRs altogether.
The bench also indicated that it intends to frame broader guidelines on the use of force during public protests. While allegations of both violence and police excesses will be investigated by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the court said it plans to constitute a high-powered committee to recommend standards on the use of graded force, including whether pellet guns should be permitted.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan suggested that the committee be headed by a retired Chief Justice of India. The bench said that while appointing a former CJI may not be feasible, the panel would instead be chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The court directed the Centre, Delhi Police and state governments to submit their responses and suggestions on the committee’s terms of reference.
Senior advocate N. Hariharan also questioned how Delhi Police had identified 2,738 alleged criminals among the protesters, suggesting that authorities may have relied on facial recognition technology to profile demonstrators. He argued that such surveillance, if used, could amount to a violation of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
