The Supreme Court on Monday was informed that the Centre remained committed to its assurance that no legal action would be pursued against students who participated in protests over the alleged paper leak. During the hearing, the court also said it would constitute a high-powered committee, headed by a former Supreme Court judge, to examine the incidents linked to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) march to Parliament.
The matter relates to the July 20 protest, during which violence broke out and police used tear gas and lathi-charge to disperse demonstrators.
Court stresses accountability and fairness
Hearing the matter, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was quoted as saying by NDTV, "A police officer involved in excessive force should not be unduly protected. It should not be that a hardened criminal under the garb of student protest is also getting protected."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the government remained firm on its earlier assurance to students.
"There was some misapprehension or miscommunication about what to do with the FIRs against the protesters. I have instructions to say that the government is serious on that commitment to students," he said.
Debate over FIRs and criminal records
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vrinda Grover sought clarity on whether the FIRs lodged against protesters would be withdrawn or quashed. Per a report by NDTV, she said, "These are young people who have their lives ahead of them. For quashing, we have FIRs in Bihar, Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. After this has been worked out with the states, we will come back to this court."
Mehta responded that the Centre stood by its commitment and said the issue would be addressed through whichever legal route was permissible.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi also sought clarification on what constituted "criminal antecedents", arguing that minor offences and protest-related charges should not be treated on par with serious crimes.
Matter to be heard again on August 19
When the Centre informed the court that 2,738 protesters had criminal antecedents, Singhvi questioned the process of identification, raising concerns over the use of facial recognition technology. Mehta clarified that identification involved not only facial recognition but also social media and other tools.
The Supreme Court later clarified that criminal antecedents would refer only to grave and heinous offences. The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 19.