Back
Supreme Court Clarifies Cannot Justify Unequal Treatment in NEET Protests
In a landmark decision that has stirred the legal fraternity, the ’s intervention in the NEET protests of July 2026 has forced a re-examination of how the State may use criminal records to differentiate among citizens exercising their right to assemble. The controversy began when , using facial recognition vans, identified 2,873 individuals in real time at Jantar Mantar, of whom 2,402 were matched against the Crime-Kundli database and 471 through police dossier records. Police reported that 989 of those identified carried previous criminal records, including cases of murder, robbery, rape, and offences under the and narcotics law.
The Apex Court, in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1409), on gave States liberty to proceed with investigation of the registered FIRs while directing that no be taken against protesting students, save those with . On , the Court clarified that “” mean grave and heinous offences alone, and that States remain at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs in accordance with law. Yet the broader legal questions remain unresolved: can a prior record – without any connection to conduct at the protest – justify different treatment before a judicial determination of guilt? And what does this say about the nature of political citizenship in a democracy?
When a Database Becomes a Gatekeeper
The events at Jantar Mantar unfolded against the backdrop of widespread unrest over the NEET examination. As students gathered to press their grievances, registered 13 FIRs. While the protest was ongoing, facial recognition vans scanned the crowd in real time, cross-referencing faces against criminal databases. The subsequent classification of protesters into those with and without became the basis for excluding certain individuals from the protection against the Supreme Court later extended to others.
This classification raises a fundamental problem: “A prior record is not evidence of what happened at the protest.” As the opinion piece by G.S. Bajpai and Chirag Balyan underscores, an sets criminal law in motion, but the executive cannot simply undo it – judicial oversight is required at every stage. Yet the State governments effectively excluded a subset of protesters from closure of cases and from the Supreme Court’s protective order, based solely on a database entry that may reflect a pending , a prosecution at any stage, a conviction, an acquittal, or even a long-closed case. The label “criminal antecedent” does not distinguish among these.
The distinction matters because criminal liability turns on conduct on the specific occasion in question. “The of a person is irrelevant in criminal law,” as the authors note. The State’s characterization that “bad elements entered the protest with ulterior motives” runs contrary to the fundamental premise that every individual is deemed rational and autonomous. To treat someone as inherently dangerous or untrustworthy based on their past is to import the logic of preventive policing into a context where it has no place – after the assembly has ended.
The Meets the Protest Ground
Preventive tools have a recognized domain in policing. As the article explains, under the and relevant Police Acts, the State may draw an inference about future risk from past conduct, but only within a prescribed legal framework. The authority must identify the apprehension and the material on which it rests; the measure must bear a rational relation to ; and the person concerned must have an opportunity to contest it. These safeguards prevent the preventive exercise from becoming conjectural or overbroad.
However, once the NEET protest was called off, “there was no apprehended harm left to avert.” The antecedents then acquired a different significance – they became the basis for distinguishing those entitled to relief from those who would remain exposed to criminal process. The preventive rationale had lost its temporal and substantive connection with the occasion that had generated it. In other words, the State used a preventive logic after the preventive need had evaporated, leaving behind differential treatment founded on past record rather than conduct at the protest.
If someone’s presence had breached the terms of , that would be a matter for the relevant court to consider. But that was not alleged. Instead, the mere existence of a criminal record – without any connection to the protest – sufficed to place the protester in a separate, less protected category.
A Paradox at the Heart of Citizenship
The authors identify a paradox: criminal law ordinarily treats the individual as responsible for his choices and answerable for what he does. Dangerousness introduces a different way of seeing that same individual. The State may continue to recognize him as a responsible citizen, entitled to vote and subject to the ordinary responsibilities of citizenship, while treating him as insufficiently trustworthy to participate in collective political action. “The person remains a citizen, but his political agency becomes conditional on the State’s assessment of his dangerousness.”
This paradox has profound implications. It means that the same person whom the law holds responsible for his choices is treated, based on his past, as someone whose exercise of those choices cannot be trusted. Dangerousness does not merely identify a risk; it changes the terms on which the individual is permitted to exercise political citizenship. Once that happens, the State is no longer responding only to what the person has done. It is deciding what kind of political participant he is entitled to be.
Consequences for Democratic Participation
The disclosure that 989 of those identified had previous criminal records inevitably shaped public perception. It suggested that the protest was not merely a gathering of students pressing a grievance but one in which criminal elements had become entangled. However, the significance of the disclosure extends beyond public perception to the conditions on which political citizenship is exercised. As the authors note, “The is one of its most direct manifestations and, for those at the margins of social and economic life, often one of the few means of making a claim upon the State.”
The underlying premise is that membership in the political community does not depend upon a prior assessment of one’s worthiness to participate. When a criminal record becomes a basis for differentiating among citizens in the exercise of that freedom, political citizenship ceases to be experienced on equal terms. This burden is likely to be most acute for those already exposed to closer policing and institutional suspicion. For them, the consequence may extend beyond a diminished willingness to protest to a diminished willingness to engage with the State itself.
What Remains Unresolved
The Supreme Court’s clarification – confining to grave and heinous offences and confirming that States may close or withdraw FIRs in accordance with law – was a necessary correction. Yet the standard that must govern any use of a record as a ground for treating citizens differently in the exercise of democratic rights remains unsettled. As the authors conclude, “If the State can decide who deserves the by looking into his past, the question is no longer only what the citizen has done, but what kind of citizen the State is prepared to recognize.”
For legal practitioners, the case highlights the urgent need for clear procedural safeguards when the State invokes predictive tools to curtail fundamental freedoms. It also underscores the tension between the – equipped with databases, facial recognition, and real-time profiling – and the basic tenets of criminal law that require . The balance between security and democratic participation must be recalibrated, lest the criminal record become a permanent bar to full citizenship.
As the legal community awaits further guidance from the Apex Court, one thing is clear: the NEET protest controversy has opened a critical debate about the limits of state power and the foundations of democratic equality. The answer may well define the future of protest in India.
