The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the Delhi Police on how the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) apply to the accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case, while the accused could have been booked under other legislations.
The court was hearing a bail plea by the 2023 Parliament security breach accused Neelam Azad.
A division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice C Vaidyanathan Shankar remarked that even though undoubtedly entering inside the Parliament is not a joke and cannot be a form of protest, how was UAPA made out against the accused persons.
“The question is whether having smoke canisters inside the Parliament would attract UAPA at all?” the Court asked the Delhi Police.
The oral remark was made after the division bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted, based on the forensic lab report, that the smoke canisters used by the accused in Parliament were not noxious.
Justice Prasad remarked, “Nobody can even play a prank or do something like a protest in the Parliament building which is the pride of the Country. Nobody is saying anything on that,” but went on to question the application of the stringent law, stating, “You have filed the chargesheet under UAPA, having stricter bail considerations. Question is whether the offence of UAPA or any other act is committed? There are other acts as well. No problem in that. The issue is whether the UAPA offence is made out.”
The Court also stated that there are other enactments which can be invoked against the accused, like the Indian Penal Code, while also underscoring that the Court should not be misunderstood for not taking the issue seriously.
“This is not to be taken lightly. This deserves the seriousness which is being given and it is evident from the fact that you are appearing. We are only trying to interpret the provisions of a serious Act with serious consequences,” Justice Shankar told ASG Chetan Sharma.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sharma referred to the date of the incident, which coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, and argued that it was not a mere coincidence but a premeditated act.
In response, Justice Prasad pointed out that the smoke canisters used by the accused did not contain any metal, which was evident from the fact that they passed through security and metal detectors undetected.
“It doesn’t have metal,” the Court noted. “It is like our normal, like we said earlier, we use in IPL or Holi. It is not noxious.”
The Court clarified that it did not condone the act, stating, “We are not for a moment saying that what they have done is correct. We are not saying that they have done a prank or it was their protest. No.”
“This is not a form of protest,” the Court emphasised. “You’re disturbing a place where serious work gets done. It’s not a joke. It is not a place where you can… you cannot equate yourself with Bhagat Singh.”
“But still the question is UAPA,” the court emphasised.
ASG Sharma then referred to Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a terrorist act, and focused on the key terms “intent” and “likely to strike terror.” He argued that since the incident occurred inside the Parliament, even a minor act there must be viewed in a broader context, given the significance of the location.
The Court, in response, asked ASG to make further submissions on the matter at the next hearing.
“We have to say something to strengthen our judgment, which has the propensity of being used in other cases,” Justice Prasad remarked. “This is a division bench of this Court. The judgment will be applicable in the entire State of Delhi and could be used in other parts of the country, and that is what I am echoing.”
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 19.
The incident, considered a significant security breach, occurred on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack.
Two individuals jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during the Zero Hour session.
The duo, identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D, were seen in photographs and videos circulating on social media holding canisters that released yellow gas while shouting slogans. They were eventually overpowered by several Members of Parliament (MPs).
On the other hand, two other accused, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, sprayed colored gas from similar canisters outside the Parliament premises. They were reportedly shouting the phrase, “tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship will not be tolerated).
On being asked about the reason for her protest, Neelam alleged that the Union government does not allow the public to raise their voices against atrocities being committed against them.
Later, it was also revealed that Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D had come to the visitors’ gallery as guests of Bharatiya Janata Party MP from Mysore, Pratap Simha. The Delhi Police has registered a case under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the Lok Sabha security breach.
 apply to the accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case, while the accused could have been booked under other legislations.){kind=link}