The Aftermath of the CJP-Union Understanding: What happens now to the cases against student protesters?

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, which happened weeks after mass demonstrations by students all over India, an understanding was reached between representatives of the Cockroach Janta Party (‘CJP’) and the Union of India through its two ministers, namely J.P. Nadda and Dr. Jitendra Singh.

There is no document, at least none in the public domain, as to what exactly was signed, if at all, between the CJP and the ministers on the basis of which the protests were called off with immediate effect. What we know is that Dharmendra Pradhan resigned and that the ministers assured the CJP that cases filed against protesting students would be withdrawn in BJP-ruled states.

Before coming to the legal nitty-gritties of the process involving the withdrawal of cases, let us look at precedents for settlement between civil society and the State. Following mass agitations, an outstanding example of settlements reached by students, specifically the All Assam Students’ Union (‘AASU’) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad, was the Assam Accord signed in the year 1985. Unlike the oral understanding reached between the CJP and the two Union Ministers, the Assam Accord was signed in the presence of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

In the present case concerning the students’ agitation against rampant paper leaks and the subsequent calling off of the protest, no such piece of document is available in public record, if one was signed at all, regarding the terms on which the protest was called off. Be that as it may, what is important is that states such as Assam, Bihar and West Bengal, which are also BJP ruled states, have issued orders stating that they would ask the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps to withdraw cases against students in connection with the protest. This does indicate that such an agreement was arrived at the time when the CJP withdrew the agitation.

Where the law stands

Once an FIR is registered, the police have two options: either to file a closure report before the concerned court, or to charge-sheet the accused. There is no automatic withdrawal of FIRs. A magistrate is empowered to reject the closure report and order further investigation. The victim of the crime can also file a protest petition opposing the closure report. The point is that the process involves a judicial element when it comes to the withdrawal of FIRs. What the magistrate will do in a given case is difficult to anticipate.

Another scenario could be that the police file a charge-sheet. The Supreme Court, while hearing the plea against police excesses on July 28, noted that the investigation may continue. Perhaps the assurance given by the Union Ministers that the cases would be withdrawn was not brought to the notice of the court. Be that as it may, once a charge-sheet is filed and the court takes cognizance of the offence, the prosecution can still be withdrawn.

Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and now Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides that:

“The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,— 

(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences; 

(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences.”