India
oi-Gaurav Sharma
The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that the phrase “criminal antecedents”, which figured in the order releasing the arrested student protesters passed by it on 28th July, would apply only to those accused of grave and heinous offences. By this, the uncertainty regarding who among the arrestees the phrase might apply to – and hence be excluded from the order of release by virtue of – was lifted.
While the NCT of Delhi and the states concerned had already withdrawn criminal cases against the protesters, the bench stated that all those facing charges of serious nature would have to vacate the ones of a petty or trivial character. The orders were passed by the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, who was presiding over the court hearing.
The Supreme Court, presided over by CJI Surya Kant, ruled that protesters facing serious charges must proceed, while those with petty cases can have them withdrawn. CJP spokesperson Das expressed hope that the Centre and BJP/NDA states will fulfill promises made to student protesters on July 25th, as the court discussed probing alleged police force.
It is to be noted, however, that by this clarification, the bench made the “criminal antecedents” exception applicable only to those who would be accused of “grave and heinous offences”.
According to a subsequent X post by CJP spokesperson Das, his organisation now looks forward to the Centre and BJP/NDA-led states living up to their promises made to the protesting students on 25th July.
“Now that the Supreme Court clarified all confusions, we have reason to believe that GOI, as well as BJP/NDA governments, will live up to all commitments made to the student protesters on 25th July,” Das wrote.
In the post, Das asserted that the CJP had stood by the protesters right from the beginning by providing legal, medical, and other aid, and extended his gratitude to the many lawyers all over the country who had assisted by giving their services to the cause pro bono. He stated that the organisation had maintained direct contact with top officials of the Union government while simultaneously keeping a close tab on developments across the states, and expressed that he hoped that the Government of India’s commitment to the young people of the country would be fulfilled “in letter and spirit”.
It must also be noted that while passing the orders, the Supreme Court discussed the prospect of initiating an independent probe into the complaints of excessive use of force by the police against the protesters, with the options on the table including the appointment of a single senior police officer and a panel of judges to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the complaints. The court noted its preference for the latter but refrained from naming the body, thus initiating discussions on the matter for the first time.
