The Supreme Court has clarified that its July 28 order does not prevent state governments from taking steps to close or withdraw proceedings arising out of FIRs registered against student protesters in accordance with the law. The court also clarified that the expression ‘criminal antecedents’, used in its earlier order to exclude certain protesters from interim protection, refers to ‘grave and heinous offences’.
The clarification came after a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant permitted the NCT of Delhi and other states to proceed with the investigation of FIRs registered in connection with the protests, while restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against protesting students who did not have criminal antecedents. The direction had prompted the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which spearheaded the protests, to contend that the order was in direct contradiction to the Centre’s assurance that amnesty would be granted to the protesters.
The Bench suggested that a classification could be undertaken to distinguish students who had participated peacefully in the demonstrations from hardened criminals who may have infiltrated the protests. The court also indicated that it was inclined to lay down a uniform protocol governing the use of pellet guns as a crowd-control measure, including the exceptional circumstances in which such weapons could be deployed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government and the Delhi Police, submitted that the government was serious about its assurance and was engaging with representatives of the CJP to work out the semantics and the appropriate legal mechanism for bringing the criminal proceedings against the protesters to an end.
The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 18 and directed the Union government to file its response in the meantime. The court also suggested that details of all FIRs registered in connection with the protests could first be compiled and the cases subsequently segregated to distinguish students who had participated in the demonstrations from hardened criminals.
The Bench observed that a congenial way had to be worked out and called for cooperation from both sides. It suggested that investigating agencies could file closure reports under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), while public prosecutors could seek withdrawal from prosecution under Section 360 of the BNSS.
The court also considered constituting a Special Investigating Team to conduct an independent inquiry into allegations of police excesses as well as complaints concerning injuries allegedly sustained by police personnel during the protests.
