The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that state governments can close or withdraw FIRs against students who took part in recent protests over examination paper leaks. The order came from a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while hearing petitions on police action during the protests. The clarification matters for thousands of young protesters who fear a criminal record could affect their studies, jobs and future travel plans.
What did the Supreme Court say about FIRs against student protesters?
The Supreme Court held that the Delhi government and other state governments are free to close or withdraw FIRs against protesters, in accordance with law. This came in response to confusion over the court’s earlier July 28 order, which had allowed police to continue cases against protesters with “criminal antecedents.“
Petitioners’ lawyers told the Supreme Court that this phrase was being used to keep even minor cases pending. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued before the court that the term could wrongly cover traffic offences or old protest-related cases. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised a similar concern about the ambiguity.
The Supreme Court accepted this and clarified that “criminal antecedents” would now mean only grave and heinous offences, not petty violations.
Why were FIRs filed against student protesters?
The protests began in June 2026, led by an online youth collective called the Cockroach Janta Party. Students were demanding accountability over repeated examination paper leaks, including the alleged NEET paper leak, and called for the resignation of the then Union Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, who has since stepped down from the post.
On July 20, 2026, a protest march towards Parliament at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar turned tense. Police reportedly used batons, tear gas and pellet guns to disperse the crowd. This led to allegations of excessive force, arbitrary detentions and multiple FIRs against students across states.
Reports from the time noted that climate activist Sonam Wangchuk had joined the agitation on a hunger strike, which drew further national attention to the protests before he was reportedly taken to hospital.
What does ‘Criminal Antecedents’ mean now?
This was the central confusion the Supreme Court resolved. In its order, the bench stated that the expression “criminal antecedents” used in its earlier ruling would apply only to persons accused of grave and heinous offences.
In simple terms:
- Students with no serious past criminal record can have their protest-related FIRs closed or withdrawn.
- Students accused of grave and heinous offences will not get this relief and remain under prosecution.
- Minor issues like traffic challans or earlier protest participation will not count as criminal antecedents.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, told the Supreme Court that the government stood by its assurance to help withdraw cases against genuine student protesters, though he noted that Indian criminal law does not technically use the term “withdrawal of FIR.”
How will states withdraw these FIRs after the Supreme Court order?
Since an FIR itself cannot simply be erased under criminal procedure, the Supreme Court discussed the legal routes available to states. Justice Joymalya Bagchi outlined three possible options:
- Filing a closure report before the concerned court.
- Filing an application for withdrawal of prosecution.
- Seeking quashing of the FIR through a formal petition.
The Supreme Court also suggested that authorities first gather FIR data from all states, then segregate cases involving protesters with no antecedents from those involving habitual offenders, before initiating the appropriate legal process for each category.
What else did the Supreme Court order on police action?
Beyond the question of FIRs, the Supreme Court is also examining the police response to the protests. The bench said it intends to lay down a comprehensive, nationwide protocol on when and how pellet guns can be used during crowd control. It had earlier directed the Union government to preserve ammunition logs of Rapid Action Force personnel deployed at Jantar Mantar.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that while the Supreme Court had earlier laid down principles for police conduct during protests, including in a 2018 ruling, these safeguards now need to be strengthened further. The court also noted competing claims placed before it, including allegations of assaults on journalists, lawyers and women protesters, as well as petitions from families of police personnel who were injured during the demonstrations.
The matter is listed to be heard again later this month, as the Supreme Court continues monitoring both the FIR withdrawal process and the framing of protest-related police guidelines.
The Supreme Court’s clarification brings relief to student protesters who feared their participation in a peaceful demonstration would leave them with a permanent criminal record. By narrowing the meaning of “criminal antecedents” to grave and heinous offences, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between genuine offenders and young people who exercised their right to protest.
With pellet gun guidelines and FIR segregation still pending, the Supreme Court’s next hearing this month will be closely watched by students, parents and civil rights groups across India.