In a key development that could bring relief to students booked for participating in protests against paper leaks in Delhi and other states, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday said the respective state governments can close or withdraw such cases. This relief, however, would not extend to those named in “grave and heinous” criminal cases in the past, the bench underlined.The bench —- comprising CJI and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana — was hearing a batch of pleas alleging police excesses during the July 20 Sansad Chalo march to Parliament.The march, spearheaded by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), left many protesters and security personnel injured as clashes ensued. The court is also hearing petitions by families of injured police personnel and some journalists who were allegedly attacked.Read | Is Jantar Mantar a suitable protest venue? Supreme Court issues notice to Centre over PILMonday’s clarification comes after a three-judge bench led by the CJI ruled on July 28, “Delhi and other states may proceed with the investigation of the FIRs registered; however, no coercive measures shall be taken against the protesting students. Such protection, nonetheless, shall not be extended to the persons with criminal antecedents.”The court’s latest remarks were in response to the concerns raised by some petitioners that the July 28 order may block the withdrawal of cases against protesters who do not have a criminal record. “With reference to the order dated July 28, 2026, it is pointed out that clauses 4 and 5 of Para 8 to some extent, are being misunderstood…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 bench said on Monday.Also Read | RSS leader terms CJP protest ‘anti-national’, urges case study: ‘Decode the chronology’Appearing for the Centre and Delhi government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said “that’s how we have also understood” the July 28 order. Mehta told the bench that the “semantics” of withdrawing cases can be worked out if the leaders of the protestors can be in touch with the government.The CJP, which led the protests at Jantar Mantar in the Capital, had reached an understanding with the Centre that no action would be taken against the protesters in Delhi and elsewhere.Story continues below this adFollowing the July 28 order, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said the court’s directions contradicted the government’s assurance that no protester would be directly or indirectly targeted for participating in the peaceful movement. Subsequently, governments in Delhi, Bihar, Assam, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu said they would withdraw such cases.Earlier, the SC had also considered setting up a Special Investigation Team to probe various aspects of the matter and had sought response from the Centre and the Delhi government.Also Read | ‘First and last mistake’: Girl apologises for abusing PM Modi at CJP protestArguments in the courtOn Monday, Mehta told the court that they would take more time to respond to the concerns of the petitioners. He also said that police had found that 2,738 people, who have cases of murder, rape and child abuse against them, visited the protest site in Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.Story continues below this adSenior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for a petitioner, said that such identification could have been possible only using face recognition tools and that it raises questions of privacy and personal liberty. “The only way the government has identified all the protest goers is by using facial recognition technology. This needs to be examined. We have not given consent for use of our biometric data,” he submitted.Opinion | I am a vocal member of the Opposition. CJP protest carries a lesson — and a warning — for usMehta said the identification was not only by employing face recognition techniques but their records were cross-checked.Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for a petitioner, pointed to the practical difficulties of withdrawing cases one by one. She referred to an FIR lodged by the Patna Police, naming 142 persons and another 5,000 unknown persons and added “this individual case withdrawal or individual public prosecutor seeking closure is a tedious and… slightly uncertain process”.Mehta said that “all of us will have to understand, on both sides, that there will be some people who like to keep the pot boiling.”Story continues below this adSenior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for a petitioner, said that the problem with the July 28 direction is that whenever the states think of proceeding with withdrawal of cases or other processes, “they feel that they have option telling them to please go ahead and investigate”. “So please clarify that it will not stand in the way,” he said.He said the petitioners had submitted several “shocking” videos to the court and added they have identified individual non uniformed police officers who have acted in such a manner. “A direction has to go to the Commissioner of Police and the RAF Director as to how they permitted pellet guns, lathis with nails, ununiformed people taking action. That has to be explained. Responsibility has to be fixed…Their (government) affidavit has to cover this…”, Sankaranarayanan submitted.Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court that he was appearing for a lawyer who was allegedly assaulted by police when he visited a police station to provide legal aid to detained protesters and sought a probe into the matter.The CJI said that neither police personnel who used excessive force nor hardened criminals who carried out violence in the name of the protests should be protected.Story continues below this adThe bench also said it will lay down a protocol on the use of pellet guns. The SC will now hear the matter on August 18.