SC bars coercive action against student protesters, mulls independent probe

The apex court barred coercive action against protesters without criminal antecedents, ordered the release of detained minors and sought responses from states

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed authorities not to take any coercive action against persons who participated in the recent student protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), while making it clear that the protection would not apply to individuals with criminal antecedents.

 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan also ordered the immediate release of all detained minors across the states where the protests took place. It further directed police authorities not to disclose or publish the personal or digital data of protesters.

 

Observing that the allegations of excessive use of force by police, at first glance, warranted an impartial inquiry, the Court indicated that it would consider constituting a high-powered committee to investigate the incidents.

 

 

Before taking that step, however, it granted the Union government, Delhi Police and other affected states an opportunity to place their version on record.

 

Notice was issued to the Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

 

The Bench also directed the preservation of all evidence relating to the protests, including CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-camera footage, PCR calls, wireless communications and other electronic records.

 

During the hearing, the Court took note of allegations that security personnel had used pellet guns, rubber bullets, electric batons and lathis embedded with nails against protesters, resulting in serious injuries, including the alleged loss of eyesight of one student.

 

It also recorded allegations that police personnel in civilian clothes had been deployed during the demonstrations.

 

At the same time, the Bench noted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that anti-social elements and persons with criminal backgrounds had infiltrated the protests and assaulted police personnel.

 

The Court observed that while peaceful protests are an essential feature of democracy, the existing judicial framework governing such demonstrations may require revisiting.

 

It said an effective mechanism was needed to respond to large-scale public protests while balancing the rights of protesters and law enforcement.

 

The matter arose from a batch of petitions seeking nationwide guidelines to safeguard peaceful protests following allegations of police brutality during demonstrations at Delhi's Jantar Mantar and in Bihar.

 

Other petitions sought action against protesters accused of attacking police personnel.

 

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the Court to ensure accountability for alleged police excesses and sought an independent investigation.

 

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan referred to incidents in Maharashtra, including allegations of threats by a police officer and the use of electric batons, while Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat submitted that around 150 people, many of them minors, remained in custody in Bihar despite the state's announcement that it would withdraw the FIRs.

 

Supporting an impartial inquiry, Mehta told the Court that allegations of police excesses could not be ignored, but stressed that attacks on police personnel also required investigation. He urged the Court to allow the government to place the factual record before any committee was constituted.

 

The matter is scheduled for hearing next week.