The Delhi High Court on May 7 questioned the Delhi Police regarding the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against individuals involved in the 2023 Parliament security breach case. The division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice C Vaidyanathan Shankar raised concerns about whether the possession of smoke canisters in Parliament can be considered a terrorist act under UAPA.
"Entering the Parliament without authorization is not a joke and cannot be justified as a form of protest. But how is UAPA applicable here?" the bench asked, directly questioning the charges framed under the stringent law.
The case in question involves accused persons Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who were allegedly involved in the incident. During the hearing, the Court highlighted that although disrupting Parliament is serious, the core issue is whether UAPA is applicable in this scenario.
“Nobody can even play a prank or protest in the Parliament building, which is the pride of the Country. The question is whether the offence under UAPA is made out?” Justice Prasad remarked, emphasizing the need for clear legal interpretation.
The Court further noted that there are other legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that could be applied against the accused instead of UAPA. It clarified that the seriousness of the incident is not being downplayed, but the relevance of UAPA needs careful consideration.
ASG Chetan Sharma, representing the Delhi Police, argued that the date of the incident coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, suggesting that the act was not coincidental. He emphasized the "intent" behind the act, which is a critical factor under UAPA’s definition of a terrorist act under Section 15.
However, the bench pointed out that the smoke canisters did not contain any metal, which meant they passed through security without triggering alarms. The Court compared these smoke canisters to those used in IPL matches or during Holi, questioning their classification as a weapon.
“It doesn't have metal. It is like the smoke we use in IPL or Holi. It is not noxious. We are not saying that their act was right, but is it terrorism?” the Court questioned, expressing doubts about the gravity attributed to the incident under UAPA.
The Delhi Police countered this view, stating that the accused intended to invoke memories of the 2001 Parliament attack, turning the incident into a symbol of terror. ASG Sharma insisted that any act inside the Parliament, even a minor one, should be viewed seriously due to the sensitivity of the location.
The Court has asked ASG Sharma to make further submissions on May 19, emphasizing that the judgment in this case could have broader implications, potentially being referenced in other cases across the country.
Case Title: MANORANJAN D v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
