The Supreme Court has stated that states can withdraw or continue cases filed during the student protests against the NEET paper leak, based on their discretion and the law. The Supreme Court stated that states are free to decide on these matters if their decision is legally sound.
The Supreme Court had stated on July 28th that state governments could initiate investigations into FIRs. Now, the Supreme Court has clarified that, under existing laws, they have the authority to decide whether to pursue or withdraw the case. Petitioners were concerned that this Supreme Court order could impact the terms agreed by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) negotiators with the central government on July 28th.
What were the petitioners’ fears?
Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana of the Supreme Court clarified that the “criminal background” cited by the court was only for those involved in serious crimes. Students were not described as having criminal backgrounds. The petitioners had argued that this could have entangled students.
Which case was heard?
The Supreme Court is hearing petitions on Monday related to the violence that occurred during the “Chalo Sansad” march, organized by CJP protesters on July 20. The issue of excessive use of police force and the withdrawal of FIRs filed against the students were debated.
What do the petitioners want?
On one hand, the petitioners are demanding action against the police officers, while on the other hand, action is also being demanded against the protesters who injured the policemen.
What is Tushar Mehta saying?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that there were legal complications in implementing the central government’s promise to withdraw the FIRs filed against the students. He said that criminal law does not provide for the direct withdrawal of FIRs, but rather the option of filing a closure report, withdrawing the case, or having the case dismissed by the court.
On which demand is the matter stuck?
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought clarity on the July 28 order, which allowed states to continue investigations. Citing video footage, he demanded action against the named police officers. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought a clear definition of the term “criminal antecedents” so that students with minor offenses, such as traffic violations, are not harassed. The court has now scheduled the next hearing for August 18.