New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3) said that the states are at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs, in accordance with law, against protesters who have participated in the youth movement that lead to the resignation of former Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan.“It is clarified for July 28 order that NCT of Delhi and any other state shall be at liberty to close/withdraw FIRs against protesters. The word criminal antecedents is to be read as grave and heinous offences,” the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said.The court had in its July 28 order said that it was barring coercive action against students who did not have “criminal antecedents”.The apex court’s observations on Monday came while hearing pleas concerning alleged police excess against NEET paper leak protesters and the alleged violence on July 20 during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march in New Delhi. One set of petitioners sought action against police personnel for alleged brutalities on protesters while another set of petitioners asked for action to be taken against students for allegedly causing injuries to police.“There are two things in our mind. One is a SIT of police officers to investigate or to have a committee headed by a retired judge,” the CJI said, underlining that the proposed mechanism would examine allegations against both the authorities and the protesters.Also read: Supreme Court Says Pellet Guns Are Permissible in Exceptional CasesHowever, the CJI also observed that police officers who have indulged in “excessive force” against protesters should not be “unduly 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,” the CJI said.Advocate Vrinda Grover raised the petition against pellet guns. She said, “There is no standing order of Delhi Police that allows that use of pellet guns or mentions the weapon of pellet gun. The petition is not saying that the police should not have anything to protect itself. But this particular weapon is unfit for use.”CJI Kant mentioned that the apex court will lay down a protocol on the use of pellet guns. The matter is listed for hearing on August 18.On Thursday (July 30), the Supreme Court had directed the Delhi government to ensure adequate medical treatment for protesters injured in firing during the July 20 ‘Chalo Sansad’ demonstration while hearing a PIL was moved by two pellet injury victims, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori, with Yashovardhan Azad, former Intelligence Bureau special director and former Central Information Commissioner as the first petitioner.While passing the interim order on Thursday the court had also observed that police regulations permit the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances and that a challenge to their use may not be maintainable unless the relevant regulations are challenged.‘Court can engineer a process’Live Law reported that during the hearing Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta submitted that there was “some confusion” regarding how to implement the Union’s commitment to withdraw the FIRs against protesting students as there was some confusion regarding the “semantics” since criminal law has no option to withdraw an FIR.“Barring those with criminal antecedents, the government is prepared to address the cases against the student protesters. Let them sit with the government. There are some people who want to keep the pot boiling so we have to be cautious about the legal advice,” the SG said.The SG added that he had a discussion with advocate Grover regarding how to legally enforce the commitment. “I had a discussion with Vrinda Grover. We have to see how to go about it.”To this, Grover said, “The issue is whether it would be withdrawal or quashing of FIRs. It was about improvement in education system. These are young people who have their lives ahead of them. Even for quashing, we have FIRs in Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. After this has been worked out with the states, we will come back to this court.”Further, Grover underlined that individual applications for withdrawal of cases can be a tedious process as they were subject to the uncertainty of judicial approval. For instance, she cited a case related to Patna, which mentioned over 5,000 unidentified persons, and said that such “catch-all” FIRs can be used to trap anyone, the Live Law report mentioned.Also read: It Is Difficult to Not Let Hope Seep InMehta emphasised that “whichever legally permissible way it may be done, the government stands to its commitment.”Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also mentioned that “criminal antecedents” needs to be clarified.“These are students, somebody may have a driving violation or a petty offence, or due to a political case. The word criminal antecedent needs to be clarified,” Manu Singhvi said.He added, “I am asking for addition of one sentence, excluding petty offences and political protest.”Further, the counsel mentioned that unless there is a murder case or a rape case, “this term criminal antecedent is too wide.”The CJI noted, “It will have to be seen how many FIRs are there. Then the second exercise would have to be the segregation of those with antecedents.”“The court can “engineer” a process for the quashing of the FIRs,” Justice Bagchi was quoted as saying.‘How you permitted pellet guns and lathi charge’Meanwhile, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing some other petitioners, sought clarification on the July 28 order. He also submitted that petitioners have appealed to the court asking for “responsibility to be fixed” as it is unclear who permitted the police to resort to lathi charge and the use of pellet guns.“A direction has to go to the Commissioner of Police and the RAF Director to ask them how you permitted pellet guns and lathi charge. The police cannot be permitted to act like this. There is no question of it. We have placed videos. We are inviting the court’s attention to this serious issue. Let the affidavit answer these questions. The responsibility has to be fixed,” Sankaranarayanan was quoted as saying by Live Law.Also read: The Cost of One Nation, One ExaminationDuring the hearing, senior advocate N. Hariharan also submitted that facial recognition technology was likely used by the Union government.“The only way the government has identified all the protest goers is by using facial recognition technology. This needs to be examined. We have not given consent for use of our biometric data,” Hariharan said.Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves raised the issue of Delhi advocate Manik Gupta who has approached the Supreme Court alleging that he was assaulted and abused by the Delhi Police when he visited the Nizamuddin Police Station on July 23 for the release of students who were arbitrarily picked up on their way to Jantar Mantar to participate in the Cockroach Janata Party-led (CJP-led) student protests.Gonsalves underlined that it was a serious issue affecting the very administration of justice.