Supreme Court clarifies meaning of criminal antecedents in student protest cases

The Supreme Court clarified that "criminal antecedents" refers only to grave and heinous offences while allowing states to withdraw FIRs against eligible student protesters. The court also proposed framing guidelines on pellet gun use and continued hearing allegations of police excesses

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that the expression “criminal antecedents” in its order on releasing student protesters referred only to those involved in grave and heinous offences, and said states could close or withdraw FIRs against the remaining students in accordance with law.

The clarification came after the Centre submitted that it was “serious” about not pursuing FIRs against students who participated in the protests over the NEET examination paper leak, including the July 20 march to Parliament in Delhi, provided they did not have criminal antecedents.

---

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a batch of pleas alleging police excesses against student protesters during the agitation spearheaded by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

“It is clarified that the NCT of Delhi and any other state shall be at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs against protesters… The term ‘criminal antecedents’ is to be read as referring to grave and heinous offences,” the bench said.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there was some confusion regarding the implementation of the Union government’s commitment to withdraw FIRs against students.

“There was some misunderstanding about what to do with the FIRs against the protesters. I have instructions to say that the government is serious about that commitment. Those who had criminal antecedents… except them, everything can be taken care of,” Mehta said.

He said FIRs against more than 2,700 people with antecedents involving grave and heinous offences would not be withdrawn.

Mehta said he had discussed with senior advocate Vrinda Grover the legal mechanism for implementing the commitment. Grover said the issue was whether the cases should be withdrawn or the FIRs quashed.

“It was about improving the education system. These are young people who have their lives ahead of them. Even for quashing, we have FIRs filed in Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi.

“After this has been worked out with the states, we will come back to this court,” she said, adding that individual public prosecutors seeking closure was a lengthy and uncertain process.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that even the children of lawyers were beaten during the protests.

“The videos are very shocking. We have given 300 videos to the court. Since directions have come from the top, the Commissioner of Police must look into all this.

“Ideally, we have identified plainclothes individuals committing such police excesses. A direction has to be issued to the Commissioner of Police and the RAF Director asking why the police used pellet guns and other such measures,” he said.

Sankaranarayanan said the police cannot be permitted to act brazenly.

“We have placed the videos on record. We are inviting the court’s attention to this serious issue. Let the affidavit answer these questions. Responsibility has to be fixed,” Sankaranarayanan submitted.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi said the expression “criminal antecedents” required clarification, as students could have traffic violations, petty offences or politically motivated cases against them.

The Chief Justice observed, “A police officer involved in excessive force should not be unduly protected. And it should not be that a hardened criminal, under the garb of a student protest, is also getting protected.”

On the use of pellet guns, Grover said there was no standing order of the Delhi Police permitting their use.

“The petition (on pellet guns) is not saying that the police should not have anything to protect itself. But this particular weapon is unfit for use,” she said.

The court said it would like to lay down a protocol governing the use of pellet guns and posted the matter for further hearing on August 18.

The apex court had earlier observed that police excesses or a lathi charge could not be justified merely because there was an agitation and underlined that the right to peaceful protest was “absolutely guaranteed”.

The CJP-led march on July 20 in Delhi saw clashes between protesters and security personnel, who used lathis and tear gas shells to disperse the crowd attempting to move towards Parliament.

Earlier, the top court had agreed to hear on Monday the pleas alleging police excesses against protesting students.

One petition seeks nationwide guidelines to regulate police action during public protests, including a prohibition on the deployment of plainclothes personnel for crowd-control duties, safeguards on the use of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and an independent probe into the police action during the July 20 protest in Delhi.

Filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi through advocate-on-record Chand Qureshi, the plea has made the Centre, the Delhi government, the Police Commissioner and all states and Union Territories respondents.

It seeks enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It alleges that the demonstration in Delhi on July 20 was met with heavy police deployment, barricading, tear gas, baton charges and mass detentions, resulting in injuries to at least 60 protesters.

It also alleges assaults, gender-based misconduct against women protesters and the use of force by unidentified or plainclothes personnel.

The student-led protests, which spread to several cities, were centred on the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The agitation, which began at Jantar Mantar on June 20, was called off on July 25 after Pradhan resigned and the government accepted the CJP’s other demands.