NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on August 3 clarified that the States are at liberty to close or withdraw the FIRs, in accordance with law, against students over their participation in the student protests.
It clarified its July 28 order, which had observed that the States can proceed with the investigation in the FIRs. The Court made the clarification today after petitioners pointed out that the July 28 order can impede the withdrawal of FIRs, which was a commitment made by the Union to the Cockroach Janta Party leaders as a condition to end the protests.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also clarified that the term “criminal antecedents” in the July 28 order means only “grave and heinous offences”. In the July 28 order, the Court had barred coercive action against students who did not have “criminal antecedents”. The Court clarified the expression after it was told by the petitioners that the term was vague and could cause difficulties to students who may have petty offences.
The Court was hearing petitions over the violence in the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march held by the CJP protesters on July 20.
While one set of petitions seek action against police officials who allegedly used excessive force on protesters, another set of petitions seek action in respect of the injuries allegedly sustained by officers from the side of protesters.
At the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that there was some confusion regarding how to implement the Union’s commitment to withdraw the FIRs against students. While the Government was serious about its commitment, there was some confusion regarding the “semantics”, as the criminal law has no option to withdraw an FIR. There can be the option to file a closure report, or to file an application to withdraw the prosecution, or the Courts quashing it.
The SG said that he had a discussion with Advocate Vrinda Grover regarding how to legally enforce the commitment. Also Read – ‘Important’ : Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response On Plea Against Allowing Protests At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Grover said that individual applications to withdraw the prosecution can be a tedious and cumbersome process, and were subject to the uncertainty of judicial approval.
She cited one Patna FIR, which mentioned over 5000 unidentified persons, and said that such “catch-all” FIRs can be used to trap anyone. Mehta sought a few days to finalise the reply and agreed to share a chart of the FIRs. Justice Bagchi said that the Court can “engineer” a process for the quashing of the FIRs.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for some other petitioners, sought clarification of the July 28 order which allowed the States to proceed with the investigation. He also said that the petitioners are seeking action against certain named officers, whose acts of violence were caught on videos. “A direction has to go to the Commissioner of Police and the RAF Director to ask them how you permitted pellet guns and lathi charge. The police cannot be permitted to act like this. There is no question of it. We have placed videos. We are inviting the court’s attention to this serious issue. Let the affidavit answer these questions. The responsibility has to be fixed,” he submitted.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the term “criminal antecedents” be clarified so that students who face petty offences like driving violations do not face harassment.
When the Solicitor said that there were persons with murder and rape charges, Senior Advocate N Hariharan raised the issue of biometric surveillance and facial recognition technology. “The only way the government has identified all the protest goers is by using facial recognition technology. This needs to be examined. We have not given consent for use of our biometric data,” he submitted.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves raised the issue of an advocate who allegedly faced assault at the Nizamuddin Police station when he went there to meet detained protesters. He said that it was a serious issue affecting the very administration of justice.
The Chief Justice said that police officers who indulged in brutalities should not be protected. “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 student protest is also getting protected,” the CJI said.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan suggested that a former Chief Justice of India be appointed to monitor the Special Investigation Team. Vrinda Grover also raised the petition against pellet guns, and said that her research showed no document authorising its use against civilian protesters. The CJI said that the Court will lay down a protocol on how pellet guns can be used.
The bench posted the matters for further hearing on August 18.
