Supreme Court Narrows “Criminal Antecedents” to Grave and Heinous Offences, Clears Way for Withdrawal of FIRs Against NEET Protesters
The Supreme Court, on August 3, 2026, clarified its July 28, 2026 interim Order in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1409, holding that the expression “criminal antecedents” used in clauses (iv) and (v) of Paragraph 8 of the earlier Order is confined to grave and heinous offences. The clarification removes the ambiguity that had allowed the term to be read broadly enough to exclude students facing minor or unrelated charges, such as traffic violations or earlier protest-related FIRs, from the protection granted to peaceful protesters.
Background
The proceedings arise out of a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution concerning police action during protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over the alleged leak of the NEET-UG 2026 question paper. The protests, which began with a march to Parliament in Delhi on July 20, 2026, spread to Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala. The Petitioners alleged that police action during the protests, including the use of lathis, tear gas and pellet guns, violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
On July 28, 2026, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana had permitted the NCT of Delhi and other States to continue investigation of the FIRs registered in connection with the protests, while restraining coercive action against protesting students who did not have criminal antecedents. The Court had also directed the release of all detained persons below eighteen years of age who did not have criminal antecedents, if necessary on execution of a simple bond.
Clarification Dated August 3, 2026
At the hearing on August 3, counsel for the Petitioners submitted that clauses (iv) and (v) of Paragraph 8 of the July 28 Order were being misunderstood. The Bench accordingly clarified the Order in the following terms: “It is clarified that NCT of Delhi or any other States shall be at liberty to close/withdraw the criminal cases in accordance with law… Similarly in Para 8 Clause 5 it is clarified that the term criminal antecedents in the Order is clarified to mean grave and heinous offences.” The matter was listed for further hearing on August 18, 2026, with directions for filing of counter-affidavits.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the expression “criminal antecedents” as originally worded was susceptible to being applied even to students with minor, unrelated, or politically motivated cases. The Chief Justice observed that a police officer involved in excessive force should not be unduly protected and equally, that a hardened criminal should not obtain protection under the garb of a student protest.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan sought outright quashing of the FIRs. Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing CJP and student protesters, submitted that individual withdrawal of cases would be a tedious and uncertain process and urged the Court to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the FIRs directly. She cited an FIR registered by the Bihar Police naming 142 identified persons along with 5,000 unidentified persons, submitting that such catch-all FIRs risked being used to belatedly implicate individuals not originally named. The Bench did not order quashing at this stage and instead confined itself to the clarification on scope, indicating that closure reports could be filed under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or withdrawal from prosecution sought under Section 360 of the BNSS.
Centre’s Position
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated that the Union Government remains committed to not pursuing criminal cases against student protesters who do not have criminal antecedents involving grave and heinous offences. He informed the Court that cases registered against more than 2,700 individuals involved in serious offences would not be withdrawn. He sought two to three days to place the Centre’s counter-affidavit on record.
The CJP welcomed the clarification. Its spokesperson stated that the Order removed the confusion surrounding the phrase “criminal antecedents” and called on the Central and State governments to implement the commitments made under the understanding reached on July 25, 2026.
Pellet Guns and Police Accountability
Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan referred to video evidence, stated to run to approximately 300 clips submitted before the Court, alleged to show the use of pellet guns and electric batons against protesters during the July 20 Parliament march, and sought accountability from the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Inspector General of the Rapid Action Force. Advocate Grover submitted that no standing Order of the Delhi Police authorises or even refers to the use of pellet guns and sought an affidavit from the Union government disclosing whether any protocol governing such use exists. The Bench indicated that it intends to lay down a comprehensive, uniform protocol on the use of pellet guns as a crowd-control measure, to be framed after considering the Government’s Affidavit and expert opinion.
Independent Inquiry and Directions
The Court indicated that it is weighing two options for an independent inquiry into allegations of police excesses, as well as complaints of injuries to police personnel: constitution of a Special Investigating Team of police officers, or a committee headed by a retired judge. All States and Union Territories have been directed to file counter-affidavits detailing the status of FIRs registered in connection with the protests, the police action taken, and the medical treatment provided to injured protesters. State authorities have been left to segregate protest-related cases involving minor charges from those involving serious criminal allegations before approaching the competent courts for withdrawal. The matter is listed for further hearing on August 18, 2026.
Shomdeepta Chanda
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Watch our latest video on Maintenance