Supreme Court clarifies ‘criminal antecedents’ in student protest cases, says states free to withdraw criminal cases

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday clarified two aspects of its July 28 interim order passed in the student protest violence cases. It held that the NCT of Delhi and other state governments are at liberty to close or withdraw criminal cases in accordance with the law. It also clarified that the expression “criminal antecedents” in its earlier order refers only to persons accused of grave and heinous offences.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant passed the clarification while hearing a batch of petitions alleging police excesses during recent student protests and seeking accountability for the use of force against demonstrators. “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,” the Court clarified.

In its July 28 order, the court had directed the release of persons detained during the protests who did not have criminal antecedents while excluding others from the benefit of the order. The court also indicated that it is considering constituting an independent mechanism to examine allegations of police excesses. It clarified that the proposed body may not be called an SIT by nomenclature.

“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 said. The CJI added that the proposed mechanism would examine allegations against both the authorities and the protesters.

Senior advocates appearing for one of the petitioners argued that the expression “criminal antecedents” was being interpreted too broadly, resulting in unnecessary arrests. “Catch-all category becomes a reason to arrest… After this has been worked out by the State, we can come to court seeking quashing,” it was submitted.

Solicitor General of India (SGI) 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.

On the issue of the closure of cases or criminal proceedings against those detained, the Supreme 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.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi suggested the possible legal options available after such categorisation: “File a closure report… quashing… or the Public Prosecutor withdraws FIRs. We can, in general, enable that process.”

One of the petitioners also questioned the use of pellet guns and lathis with nails during the protests and sought accountability from senior police officers. On this issue, the Court sought the Centre’s response. “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 directed the Centre to file affidavits on the FIRs as well as the use of pellet guns. The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 18, when the court will consider the composition of the proposed judge-led panel and the affidavits to be filed by the Centre. (ANI)