In a major development for thousands of candidates and citizens demonstrating against alleged paper leaks and irregularities in the NEET-UG examination, the Supreme Court of India clarified that state governments are fully at liberty to withdraw or close First Information Reports registered against peaceful student protesters. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued the clarification while refining its previous interim directives. The top court explicitly narrowed the definition of criminal antecedents, specifying that protection and case withdrawals apply to all students except those facing charges related to grave and heinous crimes.
The legal clarification addresses widespread concerns that minor infractions or petty charges registered during nationwide demonstrations would prevent young students from receiving judicial relief or clearing their legal records. By restricting the disqualifying criteria strictly to serious offences such as murder and major violent acts, the top court paved the way for state authorities across the country, including the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, to file closure reports or formally seek the withdrawal of prosecutions against non-violent demonstrators.
Centre Outlines Stand on Heinous Cases and Criminal Antecedents
Representing the Union Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that the government remains committed to supporting student protesters who participated in peaceful demonstrations, including the Parliament march and assemblies at Jantar Mantar. However, the Solicitor General emphasized that the Centre will not support the withdrawal of cases involving individuals accused of severe violent offences. Law enforcement agencies have identified more than twenty-seven hundred individuals facing allegations of grave criminal acts during the agitation, and their prosecutions will proceed through the standard judicial process.
The Bench instructed Union and state authorities to systematically separate case files into two distinct categories, isolating student demonstrators from individuals with serious criminal backgrounds or those suspected of infiltrating peaceful assemblies to incite violence. Senior counsel representing the petitioners welcomed the court’s direction, noting that resolving minor cases through closure reports or quashing proceedings removes prolonged legal jeopardy from young students preparing for their academic and professional careers.
Supreme Court to Formulate Nationwide Protocol on Police Force and Pellet Guns
Addressing serious allegations regarding police high-handedness during crowd dispersal operations, the Supreme Court indicated its intention to establish a comprehensive nationwide protocol governing law enforcement conduct during public demonstrations. Petitioners presented evidence alleging the excessive use of force by police personnel, including tear gas, lathi-charges, mass facial surveillance, and the deployment of metallic pellet guns against unarmed civilian assemblies. In response, the Bench observed that clear regulatory standards are essential to balancing public order maintenance with fundamental constitutional rights.
“A police officer involved in excessive force should not be unduly protected, and accountability must extend to all sides whenever law and order boundaries are crossed.” — Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
The top court noted that while existing regulations permit graded police responses under exceptional circumstances, clear operational protocols must govern when and how less-lethal weapons can be deployed. The court is also considering constituting a Special Investigation Team or an independent high-powered committee headed by a retired judge to investigate specific instances of police excess as well as violent assaults suffered by on-duty police personnel.
Next Steps and Upcoming Hearing on August 18
The Supreme Court directed all state governments and Union Territories to file their formal counter-affidavits detailing the status of registered FIRs, police action, and medical care provided to injured demonstrators. State authorities are now evaluating individual case records to separate petty protest charges from serious criminal allegations before moving competent local courts for case withdrawals.
The Bench listed the matter for its next detailed hearing on August 18, 2026. During the upcoming session, the Supreme Court will review state compliance reports, consider the legal framework for quashing multi-state FIRs efficiently, and deliberate on guidelines to prevent the excessive use of police force during future public agitations.
