‘Shoot and scoot’ violence cannot be called protest: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court ruled that violent actions can't be deemed legitimate protests, emphasizing the importance of peaceful demonstration in democracy.

Violence in the form of “shoot and scoot” actions cannot be recognised as a legitimate mode of protest under any tenet of demosprudence, the Delhi High Court has held, while expressing concern over a section of society reportedly indulging in disruptive activities under the guise of protest.

The bench observed that although protests are an important component of democracy, violence carried out in the name of protest cannot be accepted. (Photo for representation)

A bench of justice Girish Kathpalia, in its May 16 order, observed that although protests are an important component of democracy, violence carried out in the name of protest cannot be accepted.

“To reiterate, protests do form a significant part of democracy. But violence in the name of protest cannot be acceptable to any tenet of demosprudence. Such acts of shoot and scoot do not constitute a protest. It is indeed a matter of serious concern that a section of society today thrives on such disruptive activities in the name of protest,” the court said.

The observation came while the court was hearing a petition filed by nine men challenging a trial court order dismissing their discharge applications for offences under 307 (attempt to murder), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house or property) of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused were booked under sections 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), 146 and 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 278 (making atmosphere noxious to health), 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), 307 (attempt to murder), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy property), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR stated that they tried to kill the security personnel present inside the gate. However, they then preferred an application seeking discharge under sections 307 and 436, but the same was rejected by the trial court in November 2025.

Following this, they approached high court, contending that no one had suffered any injuries and there was no intention to kill, and therefore the charge of attempt to murder was not made out.

They further argued that no deadly weapons were used, their actions were intended only as a form of protest, and their acts could best fall under Section 285 of the IPC, which deals with negligent conduct involving fire, and claimed that since no explosive substance was used, the offence under Section 436 IPC was not attracted.

However, Delhi Police opposed the petition, relying on statements of eyewitnesses to argue that the accused intended to kill the security guards.

However, the court upheld the trial court’s order, observing that if the incident were merely a protest, it remained unexplained why the accused allegedly crossed the wide footpath and service road after burning the effigy and then hurled the burning object onto the gate and rooftop of the security room of the bungalow.

The court further noted that it was not the petitioners’ case that the burning effigy had accidentally landed on the premises, indicating that the act appeared to be deliberate rather than incidental to a protest.

“If it was a simple protest outside house of that prominent person, it remains unexplained as to why the petitioners would, after burning the effigy, go across to the other end, after crossing the wide footpath followed by the wide service road and then throw the burning effigy across the gate and rooftop of the security room of the bungalow. It is nobody’s case that the petitioners negligently threw the burning effigy across the gate of the bungalow and/or its security room. What the petitioners did was not a negligent act; it was clearly an intentional act,” the court said.