Mere Participation In Protest Does Not Establish Common Intention To Obstruct Police: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that mere participation in a protest does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful police directions or obstruct police personnel.
Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while quashing an FIR registered against one Khurshid Ahmed, an SSC aspirant who participated in a protest at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on August 24, 2025, over alleged irregularities in examinations.
The Court observed that the principle of common intention under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires the criminal act to have been committed in furtherance of an intention shared by the persons sought to be held jointly liable.
“Mere participation in the same demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel,” the Court observed.
The FIR was registered at Kamla Market Police Station under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of BNS. The protest was permitted between 10 am and 5 pm on August 24 and 25, 2025.
According to the Delhi Police, around 800 to 1,000 people had assembled at the venue and some protesters continued to occupy the ground after the permitted hours despite repeated directions to disperse. The police also alleged that some protesters pushed and scuffled with police personnel. Ahmed was among 44 persons detained in connection with the incident.
Before the High Court, Ahmed contended that he was a competitive examination aspirant who had attended the protest to express his grievances regarding the SSC examinations. He submitted that he was neither an organiser nor a speaker and that no specific allegation of disobedience, obstruction, violence or altercation with the police had been attributed to him.
The prosecution opposed the petition, arguing that the protesters had continued to occupy the venue despite repeated announcements through loudhailers and directions issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
It also informed the Court that a chargesheet had been filed against 29 persons, while further investigation concerning the remaining protesters was continuing.
Examining the ingredients of Section 223(a) of BNS, the Court observed that the provision penalises disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant where the person concerned has knowledge of the order and the disobedience causes, or tends to cause, the consequences specified in the provision.
“In this regard, it is significant that the allegations concerning refusal to vacate the ground, instigation of the protesters and scuffling with police personnel are directed against the organisers or the gathering generally. Neither the impugned FIR nor the subsequent Status Report attributes any such conduct specifically to the Petitioner,” the Court said.
It observed that while continued presence at the venue despite knowledge of directions to disperse may amount to disobedience, the material on record did not disclose how Ahmed's continued presence attracted the further statutory requirement under Section 223(a) of BNS.
“His mere presence amongst the protesters cannot, without more, be treated as sufficient to establish the offence,” the Court observed.
Justice Narula further noted that Ahmed had joined the investigation pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35 of BNSS and that the Delhi Police had not alleged that he failed to cooperate or attempted to obstruct the investigation.
“The Petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters, in the absence of material indicating his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or any common intention to commit the offence,” the Court held.
Accordingly, it allowed Ahmed's petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings insofar as they concerned him.
It clarified that the observations were confined to Ahmed's role and would not affect the investigation or proceedings against any other accused person.