- By Talibuddin Khan
- Mon, 03 Aug 2026 03:19 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
- The Supreme Court clarified what it referred to as criminal antecedents in its previous order after petitioners alleged unnecessary arrests.
- The top court also issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the police excesses during CJP's July 20 protest march.
- Several states including Delhi, Bengal, Maharashtra, Bihar and Kerala have announced to withdraw cases against "genuine" student protesters.
NEET Protests: The Supreme Court on Monday said that states can close or withdraw the cases/FIRs filed against student protesters during the NEET paper leak protests across the country, excluding cases against those with criminal antecedents. However, the top court clarified that the expression of "criminal antecedents" referred only to grave and heinous crimes.
"The NCT of Delhi or any other State shall be at liberty to close or withdraw any such criminal case, in accordance with law. 'Criminal antecedents' used in paragraph 8(5) would mean grave and heinous offences," a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said.
The SC's clarification on criminal antecedents came after senior advocates appearing for one of the petitioners argued that the expression "criminal antecedents" was being interpreted too broadly, resulting in unnecessary arrests.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and Delhi, responded that peaceful protesters should not be equated with hardened offenders and ensured that anybody who is not a hardened criminal would not be acted against.
"Those who are protesting in a legally permissible way, except those who have criminal antecedents, everything can be taken care of," the SGI said.
He further apprised the court that the Centre is serious about its commitment not to pursue any legal cases against student protesters. "FIRs against over 2,700 people with antecedents involving grave and heinous offences would not be withdrawn," he said, as reported by PTI.
The CJP-led march on July 20 in Delhi saw clashes between protesters and security personnel, who used lathis and tear gas shells to disperse crowds attempting to move towards Parliament. Videos shared on social media also showed RAF personnel using pellet guns to disperse the crowd.
On the issue of the closure of cases or criminal proceedings against those detained, the top court said a mechanism has to be devised by authorities. "One mechanism. Gather information on FIRs from all States and in Delhi. Then segregation, without antecedents and hardened criminals. After this categorisation, then take up some recourse," the Court suggested.
Pellet Guns Issue:
The issue of pellet guns and lathis with nails also came up during the hearing, prompting the top court to issue notices to the Centre. A plea has sought accountability from senior police officers over the use of pellet guns by security personnel during the protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.
"With respect to the use of pellet guns, we would like to take the Centre's affidavit, where we would lay down a mechanism as to how and when it may be used or avoided," the CJI said. The court listed the matter for further hearing on August 18, when the Court will consider the composition of the proposed judge-led panel.
What Happened In SC Hearing On July 28?
The Supreme Court, while hearing pleas against police excesses on student protesters, issued an interim order on July 28 asking the state governments to release persons detained during the protests who did not have criminal antecedents while excluding others from the benefit of the order.
The court had also hinted towards forming an SIT, either headed by a senior police officer or a judge. "We are thinking of two options. One is SIT by a sole senior police officer. The other, we don't want to have the nomenclature of SIT. Whatever we will constitute would be by a Judge. We won't call it an SIT," the Court had said.
The court also said police excesses or a lathi charge cannot be justified merely because there is an agitation and underlined that the right to peaceful protest was "absolutely guaranteed".