The bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has said big things on Monday i.e. August 3, 2026, on the petitions filed regarding the students’ demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The Supreme Court made it clear that in the order of July 28, the term ‘criminal history’ means only ‘serious and heinous crime’. In fact, senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi had appealed to the top court during the hearing that the term criminal history should be clarified.
In fact, in the order of July 28, the court had prohibited taking strict action against those students who had no ‘criminal history’. The court made this clear when the petitioners said that the term was vague and could cause problems to students accused of minor crimes. The Supreme Court has also allowed the state to close or withdraw the FIR registered against the students. With this, the bench fixed the next hearing of the case on August 18.
The Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made it clear on August 3 that states are free to close or withdraw FIRs registered against students participating in student protests as per law.
The court has further clarified its July 28 order, in which it was said that the state can proceed with the investigation in the FIR. The court gave this clarification when the petitioners said that the order of July 28 could hinder the withdrawal of the FIR. Withdrawal of the FIR was the promise that the Central Government had made to the leaders of the Cockroach Janata Party as a condition for ending the protest.
CJI Surya Kant said that a police officer who uses excessive force should not get unnecessary security. And it should not happen that under the guise of student protests, even a notorious criminal gets protection.
On this, Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan suggested that the former Chief Justice of India be appointed to supervise the Special Investigation Team.
Meanwhile, another senior advocate Vrinda Grover also raised a petition against pellet guns and said that her research has shown that there is no document authorizing their use against civilian demonstrations. The CJI said that the court will decide on a protocol on the manner of use of pellet guns.
Earlier, when the hearing started, senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while presenting his argument, said that the term ‘criminal history’ should be clarified, so that the students facing minor offenses like violation of driving rules do not face problems.
When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that there were people who were accused of murder and rape, senior advocate N. Hariharan raised the issue of biometric surveillance and facial recognition technology. He said, ‘The government has identified all the people involved in the protests only by using facial recognition technology. This should be investigated. We have not consented to the use of our biometric data.
There is a bundle of petitions before the bench headed by CJI Surya Kant. One set of these petitions demands action against police officers who are accused of using excessive force. At the same time, petitions have also been filed on behalf of those officers who were allegedly injured. A petition has also been filed regarding the use of pellet guns against the protesters.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves raised the issue of assault on a lawyer who was allegedly assaulted at the Nizamuddin police station when he had gone to meet the protesters detained there. He said that this is a serious matter affecting the justice system. The Chief Justice said that police officers committing brutality should not be protected.
Earlier appearing before CJI Surya Kant’s bench, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said there was some confusion over how to implement the Centre’s promise to withdraw FIRs against students. The government was serious about its promise, but there was some confusion about the ‘meaning of the words’, as there is no provision in the criminal law for withdrawal of FIR. Instead, the option could be to file a closure report, file a petition to withdraw the case or get it quashed by the courts. The Solicitor General said he had discussed with lawyer Vrinda Grover how to implement this promise legally.
Grover said filing separate applications for withdrawal of lawsuits can be a tedious and difficult process and involves uncertainty about getting judicial approval. He mentioned an FIR from Patna in which more than 5000 unknown people were named. He said that such ‘catch-all’ FIR can be used to implicate anyone. Mehta asked for a few days to finalize the reply and agreed to share the chart of FIRs. Justice Bagchi said that the court can formulate a process to quash FIRs.