SC: States Can Withdraw FIRs Against CJP Student Protesters

The Supreme Court on Monday removed the legal fog over the Centre's July 25 promise to CJP protesters. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, clarified that the Delhi government and other states are at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs registered against student protesters "in accordance with law". The bench also spelled out that the expression "criminal antecedents" in its July 28 interim order covers only "grave and heinous offences" — not petty violations or earlier protest-related cases.

The clarification came after petitioners, represented by senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, A.M. Singhvi, and Vrinda Grover, told the Court that the July 28 wording was being used to keep cases alive even where the so-called antecedents were minor traffic offences or past protest participation. The Court had on July 28 permitted states to "proceed" with investigation of FIRs while restraining coercive action against students without criminal antecedents. That ambiguity, the petitioners argued, risked turning the assurance into a dead letter.

"It is clarified for the July 28 order that NCT of Delhi and any other State shall be at liberty to close/withdraw FIRs against protesters," the bench said on Monday. "The word criminal antecedents is to be read as grave and heinous offences."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government and Delhi Police, submitted that the Centre was "serious" about its commitment and was engaging with CJP representatives on the "semantics" and legal mechanism to end the proceedings. "The question that was discussed was the semantics... whether it would be permissible under the law to withdraw the FIRs or some other methodology needs to be adopted," Mehta told the bench.

The Court suggested compiling all protest-related FIRs and segregating genuine student protesters from "hardened criminals" who may have infiltrated the demonstrations. Justice Bagchi noted investigating agencies could file closure reports under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), while public prosecutors could seek withdrawal under Section 360 BNSS. Advocate Grover, for CJP, had called individual case withdrawal "tedious and slightly uncertain" and urged the Court to consider invoking Article 142 to quash FIRs en masse.

The bench also reiterated its inclination to lay down a uniform protocol governing the use of pellet guns as a crowd-control measure, including the "exceptional circumstances" in which such weapons may be deployed. The matter was posted for August 18, with the Centre directed to file its response.

CJP chief spokesperson Saurav Das welcomed the ruling as "another big victory for the youth" and demanded immediate implementation of the July 25 assurances by the Centre and all BJP/NDA-ruled states. "The youth of this country honoured their word. It is now time for the government to honour its own immediately," Das said. CJP spokesperson Ratna Singh added the party would monitor implementation closely and continue providing legal aid to women protesters who had alleged harassment.

The protests, launched under the Cockroach Janta Party banner over repeated question-paper leaks, escalated after the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" march at Jantar Mantar where clashes, lathi-charges, and the alleged use of pellet guns were reported. The agitation was called off on July 25 after Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned and the government gave assurances on FIR withdrawal and a probe into police excesses.

What we can verify

• Supreme Court clarification (Aug 3, 2026): The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi, and Justice Mohana stated states may close/withdraw FIRs against protesters in accordance with law; "criminal antecedents" means only grave and heinous offences. — LiveLaw, The Hindu, The Tribune
• Centre's position: SG Tushar Mehta said the government is "serious" about its assurance and is working with CJP on the legal mechanism; the matter is listed for Aug 18. — The Hindu, New Indian Express
• Legal mechanism discussed: Compilation and segregation of FIRs; closure reports (Sec 193 BNSS) and withdrawal from prosecution (Sec 360 BNSS); possible Article 142 invocation. — The Hindu, The Tribune
• Pellet-gun protocol: Court indicated it would frame a uniform protocol on pellet-gun use against civilian assemblies. — The Hindu, The Tribune
• CJP reaction: Spokespersons Saurav Das and Ratna Singh called it a major victory; demanded immediate FIR withdrawal across BJP/NDA states; vowed to monitor implementation. — New Indian Express

What remains unverified

• State-wise FIR counts and withdrawal progress: No official consolidated data on how many FIRs exist across states, how many have been withdrawn since July 25, or how many name students with "grave" antecedents. — [unverified]
• Exact legal form of withdrawal: Whether states will use Sec 193 closure reports, Sec 360 withdrawal, or seek quashing via Article 142 remains to be decided in the Aug 18 hearing. — [unverified]
• Allegations of pellet-gun injuries: Senior advocates cited videographic evidence; the Court has not yet made findings on specific injuries or command responsibility. — [unverified]
• CJP's claim of "constant touch" with senior Union representatives: The party's assertion of ongoing dialogue with government officials is based on its own statements; no independent confirmation from the government side. — [unverified]