Centre Tells Supreme Court It Remains Committed to Dropping Cases Against Student Protesters

0
8
Centre Tells Supreme Court It Remains Committed to Dropping Cases Against Student Protesters
Centre Tells Supreme Court It Remains Committed to Dropping Cases Against Student Protesters

New Delhi: The Central Government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it is still committed to its promise of not taking legal action against students who participated in protests over alleged paper leaks and also stated that those involved in serious offences would not be granted relief. 

What did the Centre say to Supreme Court?

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) had called off its protest last month after assurances that no action would be taken against thousands of volunteers who had protested to demand accountability and exam reforms.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Central government’s decision on the issue has not changed.

“There was some misapprehension or miscommunication about what to do with the FIRs against the protesters. I have instructions to say that the government is serious on that commitment to students,” said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

What was the clarification needed in plea?

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover sought clarity on whether the FIRs filed against the students who particiapted in the protest will be withdrawn or quashed. 

“These are young people who have their lives ahead of them. Even for quashing, we have FIRs in Bihar, Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. After this has been worked out with the states, we will come back to this court,” she said.

What did the Top court say? 

A Bench which was led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also said that the Delhi and other states government can claose or withdraw FIRs against the students.

The Top Court also clarified that the term “criminal antecedents” in its earlier order should be understood to mean only those accused of grave and heinous offences, addressing concerns that the phrase was being interpreted too broadly.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here