New Delhi, Aug. 4 -- The Supreme Court on Monday said it was willing to facilitate the withdrawal of criminal cases against student protesters, clarifying that its previous order did not stand in the way of governments closing or withdrawing FIRs against eligible students and that only those with "grave and heinous" criminal antecedents would fall outside the protective umbrella granted last week. The court's clarification was welcomed by the Cockroach Janata Party, and its spokesperson Saurav Das said: "Another major victory has been achieved for the youth. The Supreme Court clarified that the states that wish to withdraw the FIRs will have the liberty to do so, and the Supreme Court's [earlier] order will not interfere with that." The court's comment came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and the Delhi police, reiterated the Centre's commitment to withdrawing cases against eligible protesters, saying the issue was now one of legal procedure rather than intent. That was likely a reference to the court's direction on July 28. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that this previous direction permitting investigation to continue was being construed as an impediment to withdrawal of FIRs, while senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that the phrase "criminal antecedents", again used in that direction, could cover even trivial offences. In response, a bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, clarified its July 28 interim order to state that Delhi and all other states would be "at liberty to close/withdraw cases in accordance with law", and that the expression "criminal antecedents" used in the earlier order referred only to grave and heinous offences. The bench repeatedly emphasised that it did not want criminal cases to continue hanging over the future of students. "If both of you agree on, we can facilitate the process so that FIRs do not keep hanging on the heads of the students," it observed during the hearing after Mehta said: "The government is serious about its assurance on the withdrawal of FIRs...It may be a matter of following a process and symantics." He added that those leading the protests were already in dialogue with the government. Appearing for former Intelligence Bureau special director Yashovardhan Azad and two pellet gun victims, advocate Vrinda Grover said the petitioners had been engaging with the government and stressed that the protesters were young people whose lives should not be permanently affected by pending criminal proceedings. "These protesters are youth and they have their life ahead. Youth have to move on," said Grover, while expressing concern that the statutory process for withdrawal of prosecutions could prove cumbersome. The bench suggested that both sides work together to identify cases that could either be withdrawn by the public prosecutor or closed through appropriate police reports. "Withdrawal within the legal framework is permissible," observed the bench, urging the parties to "forge a convenient way". At the same time, the court clarified that it was not directing withdrawal in every case. "We are not asking you to withdraw the FIRs against murderers," remarked the bench....