In a significant legal clarification, the Supreme Court has ruled that state governments hold full authority under the law to close or withdraw FIRs registered against students involved in protest movements. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified its earlier stance, affirming that routine protest-related charges should not restrict students unnecessarily. Simultaneously, the apex court took a stern stance regarding crowd control methods, indicating that it will establish strict guidelines on the deployment of pellet guns during demonstrations.
Clarification on Serious Criminal Antecedents
Addressing concerns over the phrase criminal antecedents used in an earlier ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the distinction applies strictly to grave and heinous crimes. Charges involving offences such as murder, sexual assault, or terrorism remain excluded from any executive leniency. However, students charged with minor or routine offences during demonstrations will not be tagged with severe criminal backgrounds, protecting their academic and professional prospects.
Strict Guidelines on Crowd Control Tactics
Beyond the withdrawal of cases, Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized that the judiciary will determine whether and under what exact conditions security personnel can deploy pellet guns against protesters. Seeking accountability from the Central government, the court underscored the necessity of establishing clear, legally binding protocols to regulate the escalation of force, including the use of water cannons, tear gas, and non-lethal projectiles.
Ongoing Enquiries and Accountability Measures
The directive follows escalating debates and investigations surrounding the alleged firing of pellet guns at student demonstrators in Delhi. Internal probes by law enforcement authorities are currently examining whether established engagement protocols were breached. With the Supreme Court actively reviewing crowd control measures, future security operations during public demonstrations are expected to adhere to heightened judicial oversight and authorization.
