The Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against Khurshid Ahmed, an aspirant who attended a protest by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) candidates at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that merely remaining at a demonstration beyond permitted hours was insufficient to establish criminal liability without material satisfying the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
In an order dated October 13, 2026, the Court set aside FIR No. 351/2025 registered at Kamla Market Police Station under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with consequential proceedings against Ahmed.
Background
The FIR arose from a protest organised on August 24, 2025, by SSC aspirants raising concerns about alleged irregularities in examinations. Police permission had been granted for a peaceful demonstration between 10 AM and 5 PM on August 24 and 25.
According to the prosecution, around 800 to 1,000 people gathered at the venue. Police alleged that some organisers refused to end the demonstration after the permitted hours and that certain protesters pushed and scuffled with police personnel despite repeated announcements directing the gathering to disperse. Ahmed was among 44 people detained, following which the FIR was registered.
Ahmed argued that he had attended the protest as an examination aspirant and was neither an organiser nor a speaker. He contended that no specific allegation of obstruction, violence or deliberate disobedience had been attributed to him.
The State opposed the petition, maintaining that protesters remained at the venue despite repeated police directions. It also informed the Court that a chargesheet had been filed against 29 persons, while further investigation concerning other protesters was continuing.
Justice Narula examined whether the allegations against Ahmed satisfied the legal requirements of Section 223(a) of the BNS, which concerns disobedience of a lawfully promulgated order by a public servant. The provision requires more than the mere existence of an order or a person's presence at the location.
The Court observed,
“The repeated announcements through loudhailers may be relevant to establishing the Petitioner’s knowledge of the directions to disperse. Indeed, continued presence despite such knowledge may amount to disobedience of those directions.”
However, the Court emphasised that the alleged disobedience must also meet the further requirements specified in the provision. It found no material explaining how Ahmed's continued presence attracted those requirements.
The Court further stated,
“His mere presence amongst the protesters cannot, without more, be treated as sufficient to establish the offence.”
Addressing Section 3(5) of the BNS, which deals with joint liability based on common intention, the Court held that participation in the same demonstration does not automatically establish a shared intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel.
It also noted that Ahmed had joined the investigation and that the State did not allege any failure to cooperate. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that proceedings may be quashed when the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence against the accused.
The Delhi High Court allowed Ahmed's petition and quashed FIR No. 351/2025, registered under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of the BNS, along with all consequential proceedings against him.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to Ahmed's individual role and would not affect the investigation or proceedings against any other accused person.
Case Details
Case Title: Khurshid Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi Through SHO, PS Kamla Market
Case Number: W.P. (CRL) 2356/2026
Judge: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Decision Date: October 13, 2026
