On Wednesday, the Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court that the legal grounds of arrest were duly provided to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, both accused in the Parliament security breach incident that occurred on December 13, 2023.
The case was heard by a division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, who reserved their order on the bail applications filed by the accused.
Although the judgment had already been reserved, the matter was re-listed for clarification regarding whether or not the grounds of arrest were given to the accused.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Slams Abhijit Iyer Mitra Over Sexist Tweets, Orders Removal Before Hearing Defamation Case
According to Delhi Police’s legal representative, the arrest grounds were clearly mentioned in the case diary, arrest memo, remand application, and also in the trial court's order.
“Do not over-speak the court. We will not be guided by what the newspaper articles say,”
— Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked.
During the proceedings, Neelam Azad’s counsel argued that the act was not a terror attack and pointed out that the media referred to the event as a "security breach" and not a "terror incident."
In response, the court firmly directed the counsel to limit arguments strictly to legal points and avoid making political remarks.
The lawyer for Neelam further stated:
“See my slogans, see my behaviour, see my antecedents, education… I am here before a constitutional court for my constitutional right only,”
— Counsel for Neelam Azad.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Urges Government to Act Swiftly to Return Defrauded Depositors’ Money Under TNPID Act
Earlier in the case, the bench had questioned whether the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was appropriate in this situation. They sought clarification from Delhi Police on whether the non-lethal smoke canisters used in the incident could legally be treated as instruments of terrorism under UAPA.
“If using a smoke canister is a terrorist act, then every Holi and IPL match will also attract the offence under UAPA,”
— Bench had orally observed.
Opposing Azad’s bail, Delhi Police argued that the accused aimed to evoke painful memories of the 2001 Parliament attack inside the newly built Parliament building.
On the day of the breach, two individuals — Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D — jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour. They released yellow smoke using canisters and shouted slogans before being subdued by Members of Parliament.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Acquits Editor in Defamation Case, Cites Lack of Proof on Reputational Harm
In a related act outside the Parliament, Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde also released coloured smoke from similar canisters and were reportedly shouting “tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship will not be tolerated).
The incident raised serious concerns about security lapses on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack.
The case, titled Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter, remains under the High Court's consideration, with a decision on the bail plea awaited.
Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter
