The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that the Delhi government and various state governments are free to close or withdraw FIRs registered against protesters involved in the recent student protest led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and elsewhere in the country.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana explained that its July 28 order permitting prosecution of protesters with “criminal antecedents” was intended to apply only to those accused of grave and heinous offences.

The apex court clarified that the expression “criminal antecedents” should be understood in that limited sense.

The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions relating to alleged police force on July 20 against students protesting examination paper leaks.

The clarification came after counsel appearing for some of the petitioners and protesters submitted that the phrase “criminal antecedents” in the court’s earlier order was being relied upon to keep cases pending even against individuals whose past records involved minor offences, such as traffic violations or participation in earlier protests.

As the hearing commenced, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the top court that while the government stood by its assurance to facilitate the withdrawal of cases against students, there was some confusion over the legal terminology.

He explained that criminal law does not provide for the withdrawal of an FIR as such. Instead, the appropriate legal course could be filing a closure report, moving an application to withdraw the prosecution, or seeking quashing of the proceedings before the competent court, SG added.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged the bench to clarify the meaning of the expression “criminal antecedents”, arguing that students should not be denied relief or subjected to harassment over minor offences such as traffic violations.

In response, Solicitor General pointed out that some of the accused were facing serious charges, including murder and rape.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan then raised concerns over the alleged use of facial recognition technology and biometric surveillance to identify protesters.

He submitted that the government appeared to have identified participants solely through facial recognition, and argued that the issue warranted judicial scrutiny as the protesters had never consented to the use of their biometric data.

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan said that action should be taken against certain police officers, whose acts of violence were caught on videos.

The CJI 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,” he said.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover also referred to the pending plea concerning the use of pellet guns, submitting that her research had not revealed any legal or administrative document authorising their deployment against civilian protesters.

In response, CJI said that the court would lay down a protocol governing the circumstances and manner in which pellet guns may be used.

The bench also said that it was contemplating formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of police officers to investigate the allegations of police excesses or to have a committee headed by a retired judge.

The apex court has now posted the matter for hearing on August 18.

The top court was hearing pleas alleging excessive police action against students who participated in protests at Jantar Mantar and other places across the country over examination paper leaks. Families of injured police officers had also moved the top court seeking action against protesters for assaulting police personnel.

The July 20 Parliament march, organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) after weeks of protests and a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, drew thousands of students who attempted to march towards Parliament demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination paper leaks and broader reforms to the examination system.

As demonstrators attempted to breach police barricades in central Delhi while marching towards Parliament, security personnel used tear gas shells and carried out a lathi-charge to disperse the crowd.

Several videos shared on social media purportedly showed protesters being manhandled by police.

The Delhi Police, however, defended its action, stating that force was used only after sections of the crowd turned violent and allegedly engaged in stone-pelting.