'Why Did You Choose To Protest In Parliament On Anniversary Of 2001 Attack?': Delhi High Court Asks Accused In 2023 Security Breach Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (May 20) reserved order in the bail pleas filed by Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the Parliament security breach case which happened on December 13, 2023.

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved the order after hearing the counsels for the accused and ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for Delhi Police.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned the counsels for the accused as to why the specific date and venue was chosen when there are other designated places for doing protest.

“Why did you choose that date? Why did you choose that place when you know it is the parliament, when there are designated places for protest? And then you decide to hold protest inside and around the parliament, would that not be overawing the country?,” the Court asked.

The counsel for the accused submitted that the issue has to be decided in trial and that the act, as alleged, does not come within the definition of terrorist act under Section 15 of UAPA.

The Court then said that the question which needs to be decided is whether the choice of place, date and the mode and manner in which the act was executed collectively would bring the case under UAPA.

The Bench also remarked that if the accused would have gone to the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar for their protest, even with smoke canisters, it would not be an issue but the specific choice of parliament was 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. But when you choose parliament, and what makes it worse is that the parliament is in session on a day when parliamentarians pay homage to martyrs of the 2001 parliament attack… then whether it can come under prima facie case under Section 15 is what we will have to consider. We will have to think very hard…,” the bench said.

The Court also questioned the accused counsel that whether it will not amount to injury when someone gasps smoke coming out of smoke canisters, especially if supposing the person is asthmatic or if the eyes become watery due to the smoke?

ASG Chetan Sharma opposed the bail pleas and referred to Section 15 of UAPA as well as the definition of criminal force under Indian Penal Code.

He said that the noxious substance coming out of smoke canisters contact the bodies of the parliamentarians which would be covered under the definition of criminal force.

“It is not an assault of attack on ABC. It is an assault on ABC who represent the electorate of this country. 140 crores of people are crystalized and subsumed in a particular place which is the temple of democracy. If you have some date in mind, conspiracy in mind…. The test is higher,” he said.

He further said that specific choice of parliament and the date brings the act within the act of “threatening or likely to threaten the security of country” and “likely to strike terror” under UAPA which was evidenced from the fact that the parliamentarians expressed their anguish in various interviews.

“If UAPA not in this case, then where?” Sharma asked.

Sharma further submitted that the means may have been a little diluted but the effect and message of the act has to be dealt with UAPA.

Another counsel appearing for the Delhi Police submitted that a total of five meetings took place between the accused persons which shows a larger conspiracy to execute the act.

On Court's query, the counsel told that the accused persons shouted slogans and that the day was specifically chosen to commemorate the 2001 Parliament attack.

It was submitted that there was material to show that during the meetings, it was decided by the accused persons to enter the parliament on December 13, 2023, to send a message.

He further said that there were statements of the MPs immediately after coming out of the Parliament showing that there was terror amongst them.

Earlier, the Bench had questioned the Delhi Police as to whether offence under the stringent UAPA is made out against the accused persons.

Previously, the bench had orally remarked that if using smoke canister is a terrorist act, then every holi and IPL match will also attract the offence under UAPA.

The Court had asked the Delhi Police to explain as to whether carrying or using a smoke canister, which is not lethal, is covered for the offence of terrorist act under UAPA.

While opposing Azad's bail plea, the Delhi Police told Court that the accused persons in the case wanted to bring back “haunted memories” of the 2001 Parliament attack to the “majestic” new parliament building.

In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, two persons jumped into the chamber of Lok Sabha from the public gallery when the Zero Hour was in session. The duo was identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D.

In the photographs and videos that surfaced on social media, the two were seen holding canisters which released yellow gas. They were also shouting slogans. However, they were overpowered by some of the Member of Parliaments (MPs).

Two other accused, identified as Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, also sprayed coloured gas from similar canisters outside the premises of the Parliament. They were reportedly shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi.”

Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter