Court Premises Are Dignified & Inviolable Places, Can't Be Used As Venues For Demonstrations: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently denied anticipatory bail to two persons accused of raising slogans in courtroom, threatening another accused person, manhandling and obstructing police officials, who were discharging their lawful duties.
A Single Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha took the incident seriously and made it clear that any unlawful activity, having potential to disrupt judicial proceedings, cannot be taken lightly. It thus observed –
“The Court premises, including courtrooms and their immediate precincts, are required to be maintained as neutral, dignified, and inviolable spaces dedicated solely to the administration of justice. They are not meant to be used as venues for protests, demonstrations, or public agitations of any nature. Any unlawful assembly or demonstration within Court premises not only disrupts judicial proceedings but also poses a serious threat to the safety of litigants, advocates, judicial officers, and law enforcement personnel. Such acts, if condoned, would erode public confidence in the justice delivery system and encourage lawlessness.”
The prosecution version is that on November 15, 2025, one Kathawachak (storyteller/religious speaker) had allegedly made some remarks in his religious gathering which are considered derogatory to the Satnami community. An FIR was registered for hurting religious sentiments of the community and the said accused-storyteller was taken to the Court.
It is further alleged that while the police personnel were discharging their duty, the presents applicants along with certain other co-accused attempted to obstruct them and abused the storyteller, apart from raising slogans in the court premises. Therefore, an FIR was registered against obstructing persons, including the applicants, under Sections 191(2) (rioting), 221 (obstructing public servants in discharge of public functions), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), 296 (obscene act), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 299 (outraging religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Apprehending their arrest, they filed anticipatory bail applications before the High Court.
The main contention on behalf of both the applicants was that they had gone near the court premises for some personal work and they did not participate in the agitation nor did they obstruct the police in discharge of its lawful duties. On the other hand, the State Counsel opposed the bails on the ground of their involvement in the alleged acts as well as for having criminal antecedents.
The Court took into consideration the factual premise as well as the criminal antecedents of the applicants. It lucidly held that no individual or group of individuals is permitted to take the law into their own hands under the guise of protest, demonstration, or expression of grievance. The Court was particularly critical of the alleged place of demonstration and obstruction. It highlighted that the said offences were committed inside a judicial premise, which cannot be brushed aside trivially. It accordingly remarked –
“In the present case, the allegations against the applicant disclose that a mob unlawfully assembled within the court premises, entered the courtroom, raised slogans, issued threats to the accused, and obstructed police personnel who were discharging their official duties. Prima facie, such conduct cannot be viewed lightly, particularly when it involves interference with judicial proceedings and physical obstruction of law enforcement officers. The seriousness of the allegations is further aggravated by the fact that the incident occurred at a place where discipline, order, and respect for the rule of law are paramount.”
Resultantly, the Court deemed it inappropriate to protect the applicants by way of granting anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh & tagged case
Case No: MCRCA No. 1996 & 1999 of 2025
Date of Order: January 06, 2026
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer