The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, May 20, reserved its order on the bail applications filed by Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, both accused in the December 13, 2023, Parliament security breach case.
A division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar heard arguments from both sides, including Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Delhi Police, before reserving the verdict.
“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?”
— Delhi High Court questioned the accused's counsel during the hearing
Read Also:- Madras High Court Urges Government to Act Swiftly to Return Defrauded Depositors’ Money Under TNPID Act
The bench asked why the accused selected such a sensitive date—the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack—and location, which is one of the most secure zones in the country, for their protest. The court emphasized that there are designated areas for demonstrations, and choosing Parliament for such an act could be seen as trying to intimidate the nation.
The counsel for the accused argued that the matter should be decided during the trial and stated that the act, as described, does not fall under the definition of a "terrorist act" as per Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
However, the Court responded that it must consider whether the combination of the selected place, date, and manner of protest could fall within the scope of UAPA. The judges remarked that protests with smoke canisters at other places like Jantar Mantar or the Delhi Zoo may not have raised such serious concerns.
“But when you choose Parliament, and what makes it worse is that it was in session and the day was meant to pay tribute to the martyrs of the 2001 attack… we have to think very hard.”
— High Court remarked.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Acquits Editor in Defamation Case, Cites Lack of Proof on Reputational Harm
ASG Chetan Sharma strongly opposed the bail pleas, highlighting that the use of noxious gas from canisters inside Parliament, where elected representatives were present, could amount to criminal force. He emphasized that the act was not just against individuals but targeted the very institution that represents the 140 crore people of India.
“It is an assault on those who represent the electorate… The temple of democracy was targeted. If not UAPA here, then where?”
— ASG Chetan Sharma submitted.
He further argued that the intent and planning behind choosing December 13, the day of the 2001 attack, indicated a higher level of conspiracy, even if the methods used appeared non-lethal.
Another counsel representing Delhi Police informed the Court that five meetings were held between the accused, showing pre-planned coordination. The accused had reportedly decided to stage the protest on December 13 to send a strong message. The counsel added that Members of Parliament expressed fear after the incident, showing the emotional and psychological impact.
Previously, the Court had asked whether using a non-lethal smoke canister could be termed a terrorist act. In an earlier hearing, it even remarked that such an interpretation could extend to Holi celebrations or sports events like IPL if not carefully examined.
The Police had claimed that the accused intended to bring back the painful memories of the 2001 terror attack by staging this act in the new Parliament building.
On December 13, 2023, during Zero Hour, two individuals, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D., leapt into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery, releasing yellow gas from canisters and shouting slogans. They were overpowered by MPs. Meanwhile, outside the Parliament, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad released colored gas and shouted slogans like “Tanashahi nahi chalegi.”
The case, titled Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matters, has brought up serious legal and constitutional questions around protest, security, and democratic responsibility. The final decision on the bail is now awaited.