- The government told the Supreme Court it will not pursue legal action against protest students
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta confirmed the government's commitment to protect students
- The Cockroach Janta Party ended its protest last month after receiving government assurances
Delhi and other states are free to close or withdraw cases against the paper leak protesters, the Supreme Court has said after the government expressed seriousness to its commitment to not pursue any legal action against the students.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also said that it would form a high-powered committee headed by a former top court judge to probe the incidents at the CJP march to Parliament.
The case pertains to the incidents on July 20 when violence erupted at CJP's march and the protesters were teargassed and lathi-charged by the police.
"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," the CJI said.
The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) had ended its protest last month over assurances that no adverse action would be taken against the thousands of volunteers who had poured into the heart of the capital to demand accountability and exam reforms.
"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," said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Advocate Vrinda Grover sought to know whether the FIRs filed against the protesters would be withdrawn or quashed. She also underlined the issue was about improving the education system.
"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," she said.
Whichever legally permissible way it may be done, Mehta added, the government stands on its commitment.
During the court hearing, the CJI stressed the need to segregate students from those with criminal antecedents. Several states too had earlier denied relief to those with criminal records while dropping FIRs against students.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, however, sought a clarification on the scope of 'criminal antecedents', seeking the exclusion of petty offences and charges of political protest.
When Mehta shared that 2,738 protesters were found with criminal antecedents, the counsel argued that this indicates the use of facial recognition in violation of their right to privacy. Mehta, however, clarified the identification process involved not just facial recognition but social media and other tools as well.
The court then clarified that criminal antecedents would mean only grave and heinous offences.
The matter will be taken up again on August 19.
