Supreme Court clarifies that only student protestors with ‘heinous’ criminal antecedents will not be protected

ON MONDAY, the Supreme Court clarified its previous order that State Governments are at liberty to close/withdraw the cases registered against student protesters in connection with protests that originated from widespread outrage over repeated examination paper leaks, particularly the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.

Earlier, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana had said that the governments could continue with the investigations in those FIRs. This was seen as a hindrance to the assurance given to the leaders of the Cockroach Janata Party (‘CJP’) that the FIRs would be withdrawn.

Yesterday, the Bench also clarified that the term ‘criminal antecedents’ would mean those facing heinous crimes. This clarification came as the Court’s order was being misconstrued to include any offence to deny the benefit of no coercive action against students who took part in the protest and had FIRs registered against them.

‘Is it permissible in law to withdraw FIRs?’

Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the government was serious about fulfilling its assurance. The only question was a semantic one: whether it is permissible in law to withdraw the FIRs or whether some other methodology is to be adopted? 

Mehta added that he had held discussions with advocate Vrinda Grover and that they are working on how to proceed. He said that if the leaders could get in touch with the government again, the semantics could be worked out. Mehta also submitted that under the law, FIRs cannot be withdrawn and that the government is exploring other options.

Grover submitted, both on behalf of the CJP and some other students, that they are in communication with Mehta and the government and are trying to resolve the matter. Grover added that the withdrawal of cases in individual cases is a tedious option, and that the better option is the quashing of the FIRs. Senior advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for some of the petitioners, also agreed with this.

CJI Surya Kant suggested to Mehta that information regarding all FIRs from all states could be collected, and then segregated as to which are against students and which are against hardened criminals. Recourse to law could then be taken for the closure/withdrawal of FIRs against students.

‘Name and identify police caught on camera engaging in excesses’ 

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan requested that the Delhi Police be asked what action it took against the named and identified police personnel caught on camera indulging in excesses against students. He requested the Bench to issue directions to the Delhi Police Commissioner and the RAF head as to how they permitted the use of pellet guns, lathis with nails, and un-uniformed personnel. “All that has to be explained and responsibility fixed,” Sankaranarayanan had submitted.

CJI Surya Kant also opined that he was contemplating having a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) headed by a senior police officer, which would investigate the FIRs that are to continue, and a committee headed by a former judge. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan said that, having regard to the background of the case, the committee ought to be headed by a former Chief Justice of India. CJI Surya Kant said it is difficult to obtain consent from former CJIs and that they are working on it.

With regard to the use of pellet guns, the CJI said the Court would lay down a comprehensive protocol on when to use them, where to use them, and under what circumstances, and that experts would also be consulted before laying down any such protocol.