2 law students held for disrupting SC proceedings, assaulting public servant

NEW DELHI: The Delhi Police on Wednesday said that they have arrested two people for alleged assault on a public servant in connection with the disruption of proceedings last week inside the Supreme Court, wherein a petitioner-in-person used abusive words against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and caused disorder inside the courtroom

NEW DELHI: The Delhi Police on Wednesday said that they have arrested two people for alleged assault on a public servant in connection with the disruption of proceedings last week inside the Supreme Court, wherein a petitioner-in-person used abusive words against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and caused disorder inside the courtroom.

The incident took place on July 10 inside court number 13 of the Supreme Court. (HT Archive)

A senior police officer said the accused have been identified as Prabal Pratap, 24, a third-year law student and a resident of Etawah in Uttar Pradesh and Chander Bhan, 23, a second-year law student and hailing from Rai Bareilly.

Both the accused, on Wednesday, represented by advocate Vinod Kumar Dubey, were produced before the Patiala House Courts, where Judicial Magistrate First Class Ravi sent them to 14 days’ judicial custody.

The incident took place on July 10 inside court number 13 of the Supreme Court during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition titled Prabal Pratap Singh & Another Vs. State of UP.

“During the judicial proceedings, accused Pratap, while appearing as a petitioner-in-person, intentionally disrupted the court proceedings by using abusive and unparliamentary language, throwing papers inside the courtroom and creating disorder,” said the officer quoted above.

The officer said that when the staff attempted to restrain him, “the accused used force, thereby obstructing a public servant in the discharge of official duties”.

According to police, Bhan also resisted security officers when being escorted out of court.

The FIR was registered at Tilak Marg Police Station on July 11, on the basis of the statement of the Supreme Court security staff, under sections 132 (assault or criminal force on a public servant), 221 (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions), 224 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The two accused were arrested the same day.

Both accused were medically examined at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), and doctors found that no immediate active psychiatric intervention was required, police said.

Last week on Friday, Pratap appeared before a Supreme Court bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe in a matter challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his plea against the conversion of his application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into a private complaint case.

Pratap, in his petition, stated that in 2025, he was working with a firm in Lucknow as a content writer and was allegedly made to work for online betting and gambling websites. He also submitted that he raised his concerns with his seniors in the office but faced criticism instead, and eventually quit the job after four months, and then submitted a complaint at the Vikas Nagar police station but received no response. He subsequently approached the district court, which ordered a probe by the ACP of Vikas Nagar. However, Pratap raised objections to the report filed by the ACP.

During the SC hearing, Pratap referred to the judges as “judicial servants” and claimed that he was “sovereign”.

He was purportedly heard telling the bench, “Mister judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of an FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.”

Justice Viswanathan, taken aback, responded, “You are ordering us?”

The situation escalated after Pratap allegedly threw case papers into the air and used abusive language while referring to the Chief Justice. He was subsequently escorted out of the courtroom by security personnel.

The bench, however, declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner.

“We, considering the condition of the petitioner, do not propose to take any action against him,” the bench observed.