Centre’s assurance cannot override statutory processes governing withdrawal of FIRs, experts say
Even as the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) contended that the Supreme Court’s interim order permitting the States to proceed with the investigation into the FIRs
Even as the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) contended that the Supreme Court’s interim order permitting the States to proceed with the investigation into the FIRs registered against student protesters was in “direct contradiction” to the Centre’s assurance that no punitive action would be taken against them, legal experts said the assurance could not override the statutory provisions governing the criminal process. Also read | West Bengal withdraws suo motu FIR against protesters at CJP rally Once an FIR has been registered, they pointed out, the investigating agency may file a closure report if it finds no material to proceed, or the public prosecutor may seek withdrawal from prosecution in accordance with law. Notably, during the hearing on Tuesday (July 28, 2026), Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government and the Delhi Police, made no reference to any assurance by the Centre that protesters would be granted amnesty. Instead, he submitted that the violence witnessed during the protests may have been caused by “anti-social elements” and miscreants who had infiltrated the demonstrations. The submissions came as the Bench arrived at a prima facie view that an independent inquiry may be required into allegations of police excesses as well as attacks on police personnel. “It is doubtful whether the Union government can give an assurance to the court on behalf of the State governments regarding the closure of criminal cases registered by the State police.
Except for the Delhi Police, the police are under the control of the State governments, not the Centre,” said Abhay S. Oka, a former judge of the Supreme Court. “Moreover, once an FIR has been registered, it cannot simply be cancelled or deregistered,” he added. Oka explained that if the investigating agency finds no evidence against the accused, it may file a closure report under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Alternatively, if the prosecution seeks to withdraw the case before the judgment is pronounced, the public prosecutor may move an application under Section 360 of the BNSS, he said. He, however, stressed that both these routes remain subject to judicial scrutiny. “Even if the investigating officer files a closure report, the court is not bound to accept it. After hearing the complainant, it may either accept or reject the report in accordance with law. Likewise, if the public prosecutor seeks to withdraw a case before judgment is pronounced, the court can grant consent only after giving the victim an opportunity of being heard,” he said. In its interim order, the Bench led by Chief Justice of India () Surya Kant permitted the investigation into the FIRs to continue, while restraining the police from taking any coercive action against “protesting students” unless they had criminal antecedents.
The BriefWire