The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the accused in the 2023 security breach case, asking why they chose December 13 and the Parliament complex for their protest instead of designated sites.
A division bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar raised the query while hearing the bail pleas of accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who are among those arrested in connection with the incident.
The case pertains to a serious security breach that occurred on December 13, 2023 , the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. On that day, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters, and shouted slogans before being subdued by MPs.
Simultaneously, two other accused, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while chanting slogans such as “tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)” outside the Parliament premises.
While reserving its order on the bail pleas, the court asked the accused, “Why did you choose that date (December 13 which is also the date of 2001 Parliament attack) for your protest? Why did you choose that place when you know that it is the Parliament? When there are designated places to protest, why did you choose that day and place and then decide to hold your protest in and around the Parliament. Would that not amount to overawing the country?”
{{/usCountry}}While reserving its order on the bail pleas, the court asked the accused, “Why did you choose that date (December 13 which is also the date of 2001 Parliament attack) for your protest? Why did you choose that place when you know that it is the Parliament? When there are designated places to protest, why did you choose that day and place and then decide to hold your protest in and around the Parliament. Would that not amount to overawing the country?”
{{/usCountry}}Counsel for the accused responded that the actual intention behind the act would be established during the course of the trial. He further contended that the alleged actions did not fall under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which defines terrorist activity.
The court also directed the prosecution to clarify whether the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused at the time of their detention.
It was informed that the trial court has scheduled the matter for June 5 to hear arguments on the framing of charges. Accordingly, the High Court asked the trial court to proceed with the hearing on charges as planned.
Court cites Jantar Mantar to contrast protest at Parliament
The Delhi high court also cited hypothetical scenarios, observing that had the accused staged their protest at locations like the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar, even with smoke canisters, it might not have raised serious concerns. However, their deliberate choice of Parliament as the protest site was deeply questionable.
“If you had gone to Jantar Mantar with smoke canisters, no problem. If you would have gone even in the boat club, even though it is prohibited… even then we would have seen it later on. But when you choose Parliament, and what makes it worse is that the Parliament is in session on a day when the attendance would have been the maximum and the parliamentarians pay homage to martyrs of the 2001 Parliament attack, then whether it can prima facie come under Section 15 of the UAPA is what we will have to consider. We will have to think very hard.” the bench observed.
The court also asked the police to clarify whether carrying or using a smoke canister, inside or outside Parliament, falls under the definition of terrorist activity and attracts charges under the UAPA.
Opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution said the preliminary inquiry revealed that accused Azad and Shinde were associates of Sharma and Manoranjan D, and that they had jointly carried out the act.
With PTI inputs