The Supreme Court has clarified that state governments can withdraw FIRs against protesters, except for those involved in grave offenses, offering relief to many students and activists. The Court also signaled its intent to establish protocols for the use of pellet guns and address allegations of police excesses during recent demonstrations against question paper leaks.

The Supreme Court has clarified that state governments can withdraw FIRs against protesters, except for those involved in grave offenses, offering relief to many students and activists. The Court also signaled its intent to establish protocols for the use of pellet guns and address allegations of police excesses during recent demonstrations against question paper leaks.

The Supreme Court has clarified that state governments can withdraw FIRs against protesters, except for those involved in grave offenses, offering relief to many students and activists. The Court also signaled its intent to establish protocols for the use of pellet guns and address allegations of police excesses during recent demonstrations against question paper leaks.

In a significant clarification that could provide relief to thousands of students and activists booked during the nationwide Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led protests against question paper leaks, the Supreme Court on Monday said that the Delhi government and other states are free to close or withdraw FIRs against protesters, except those accused of grave and heinous offences.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana clarified that its July 28 order, which had excluded persons with criminal antecedents from protection against coercive action, should not be interpreted to cover minor offences or past participation in protests.

“It is clarified that the NCT of Delhi and any other State shall be at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs against protesters. The words 'criminal antecedents' are to be read as grave and heinous offences,” the bench ordered.

The clarification came after senior advocates appearing for the petitioners argued that the expression "criminal antecedents" was being misused to deny relief even to students facing trivial cases such as traffic violations or earlier protest-related FIRs.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged the Court to clarify the expression, saying it could otherwise encompass driving offences, petty offences, or political protests. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan echoed the concern, pointing out the ambiguity in the earlier order.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, informed the Court that the government was willing to facilitate the withdrawal of FIRs against protesters, except those with serious criminal backgrounds. The Bench observed that cases involving students and those involving hardened criminals should be segregated.

“We are not asking you to drop charges against murderers,” the Chief Justice remarked while responding to the Centre's submissions.

The Bench also indicated that it is considering a larger institutional response to allegations of police excesses during the protests. It said it was weighing two options: constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior police officers or appointing a committee headed by a retired judge to independently examine allegations of excessive force by law enforcement agencies.

The Court, however, decided to await responses from the Centre, Delhi Police, and the states before taking a final call. Notices have already been issued to the chief secretaries of Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. The matter will now be heard on August 18.

One of the most significant developments during Monday's hearing was the Court's observation on the use of pellet guns against protesters. Counsel for the petitioners alleged that pellet guns had been used by the Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force during the July 20 Sansad Chalo march despite the absence of any clear operating procedure.

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover argued that pellet guns were first introduced in Jammu and Kashmir in 2010 and that there is no standing order governing their use by the Delhi Police.

Taking note of the concern, the Bench said it intends to frame a comprehensive protocol governing the use of pellet guns.

“We would like to lay down a complete protocol on how and where pellet guns can be used,” the Court observed, signalling that the issue has implications extending beyond the present case.

The petitions arise from nationwide demonstrations that began in June after repeated examination paper leaks. The protests intensified after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation on a prolonged hunger strike. On July 20, police used batons, tear gas, and pellet guns to disperse protesters marching towards Parliament, leading to allegations of excessive force and arbitrary arrests.

TAGS