The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued several significant directions on recent protests, but also made it clear that individuals with criminal antecedents would not have any protection from coercive legal action while protecting peaceful student protesters' rights.
In that hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant said, "No coercive action will be taken against protesting students, except those with criminal antecedents." The idea is to distinguish peaceful demonstrators from those who may have been involved in criminal acts during the protests.
The court also ordered the immediate release of all detained minors under the condition that children should not be kept in custody because of the protest-related incidents. It will relieve families whose children were detained during the demonstrations.
At the same time, the court stipulated that those who allegedly committed violence would have to face legal consequences. The court on the bench stated that “those who took the law into their own hands must face the law” and that violence or destruction during protests cannot be overlooked.
The Supreme Court said any inquiry into the incidents must be comprehensive and balanced. A fair probe should also address the families of more than 200 police personnel who were injured during the violence, the court said.
The court’s words show the need to hold those responsible and to protect constitutional rights. By delineating between peaceful protesters and those accused of criminal conduct, the court showed that dissent is protected while criminal activity in protest must be investigated in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court has also issued notices to six states for their responses to the protests and actions taken by the respective authorities. The states are to respond to the court within the allotted time.
The session comes as legal proceedings have been ongoing over the violence in recent demonstrations. Students’ treatment, the jailing of minors, the use of excessive force, and injuries to police who are trying to maintain order have all been mentioned in numerous petitions before the court.
Legal observers said that the court's directions are intended to balance the need for the protection of fundamental rights against the requirement to follow the rule of law. The emphasis on a fair investigation is due to the judiciary’s demand that all parties (protesters, minors, and police personnel) be treated equally in the investigation process.
The issue will also be referred for further hearings once the states respond. Additional directions could then be considered based on the parties’ submissions and current investigations.
