'Pivotal In Fueling Protest To Aggressive Level': Delhi Court Convicts Alka Lamba For Assault During 2024 Women's Reservation Bill Protest
A Delhi Court on Monday (May 25) convicted Congress leader and former MLA Alka Lamba for assaulting police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar in 2024 on the issue of Women's Reservation, observing that she played a pivotal role in "organizing, leading and fueling the protest to aggressive levels".
ACJM Ashwami Panwar, Rouse Avenue Courts examined the video and documentary evidence of the incident and noted that the video clearly showed that the accused was amongst the first few to climb these barricades and she continued to pose for the news channels and cameras on the opposite side of the first barricades.
The court said that Lamba could be seen clearly seen to gesture protesters to cover the entire length of the barricades and they all can be seen to push the barricades.
"These barricades could be seen held by women officials from the opposite side. The accused can clearly be seen to be the first to jump the barricade onto the human chain of women police officials, other protesters followed the suit, and they all pushed the police officials and ran towards the second layer of barricades. The following videos show that, when the police officials stopped the protesters before the second layers of barricades, the accused with other protesters lied on the asphalt road. All these acts of the accused and other protesters were in contravention of constant appeal of the senior police officials made on the loud hailers at the protest site. The accused can then be seen gesturing the protesters to engage police officials at the second barricades, while she, with other protesters can be seen to jump the second layer of barricades which opened right onto the main Tolstoy Road," the court noted.
The order noted that the accused "played a pivotal role in leading the protesters and continued with her gestures in guiding every move of the protesters". The court noted that Lamba had pleaded not guilty and during the trial in her Section 313 CrPC statement she had admitted that her presence at the place of incident, however defended that the call for gherao of Parliament was symbolic call and at no point any of the protesters intentionally wanted to disrupt the ongoing parliamentary proceedings that day.
She had also stated, the court noted, that neither she nor any of the protesters crossed the exempted area at Jantar Mantar and blocked any public road and that there was no hindrance or blockage of the public freeway to have caused annoyance to public. She further stated that there was no demarcation of exempted area at Jantar Mantar which could be identified by the protesters and none of the protesters had crossed the second barricade.
She also stated that protesters symbolically lied down on the area between the two barricades and that neither she nor any other protester pushed any police official intentionally and also, she stated that pushing was done by the police officials.
"From the above statement of the accused, her presence at the place of protest has not been denied. She even admits being in the area beyond first layer of barricade and to have lied on the road in the area between first and second layer of barricade. This part of the statement of accused finds corroboration in pen drive Ex.P1. The said exhibit has not been challenged for want of proof nor any part of the video has been disputed to be doctored or morphed. The videos as explained above, are categorically contradictory to the defence of the accused and brings home the allegations of the prosecution," the court said.
The court said that the Delhi police had put in place sufficient barricade to demarcate the protest area. It said that Lamba was announced as National President and primary leader to lead the protest in question, even the number of posters at the venue depict her as the center figure leading the protest.
Thus, the court said, it was the duty of the organizers as well as the accused to know exactly the timing and area of protest and even adhere to said timing and area. The undertakings given by the organizers shows number of volunteers to be 40 and 50, respectively, and none of the videos in pen drive shows any of the volunteers guiding the protesters to adhere to timings and area of protest, the court said.
"The accused can be seen repeatedly gesturing the other protesters to cover the barricade, jump the same and even led them by jumping off the first barricade first and she was the first one to jump the second barricade too. Between these two events, she led the protesters to lie on the asphalt road with other protesters, not once but twice and she could even be seen in the video gesturing the protesters to cover more area to lie down...The announcement from senior police officials could also be heard in the background, that such act of lying on the road could hurt persons and protesters were even directed to vacate the area within 10 minutes. No such compliance was done by the accused or the protesters and the accused led the protesters to engage with the police officers to cross the second layer of barricade and she even led the other protesters to herself cross the second layer of barricade first. The videos thus, clearly show the aggressive action of the accused in leading the other protesters to violate the duly promulgated Order, block a public road and even use criminal force against the police officers, both male and female.
The accused, being central leader in the protest in question, fueled the aggression of protesters instead of abating the same. Once she jumped the second barricade and was detained by the police, remaining protesters could be seen in the videos, asking the police officers to produce the accused to talk to her before ending the protest. This clearly shows that she played pivotal role in organizing, leading and fueling the protest to aggressive levels. Once she enjoyed such prestige amongst the protesters, she cannot be allowed to escape the legal consequences of her actions for mere defence that she was one of the several speakers. The accused defence of innocence has been disproved by documentary evidence," it observed.
The court observed that the accused by her words, gestures and actions, turned the protest aggressive and there were visible concerns of risk of hurt to herself, fellow protesters as well as police officials. It said that the human chain of the women police officials was pushed several times by the protesters and they were deterred from maintaining law and order in the area, beyond the exempted area.
On Lamba's argument of fundamental right to protest the court under Article 19, the court said that for every Right there is a corresponding Duty. It said that the accused, being a responsible citizen, was duty bound and expected to ensure public order at the time of holding protest at the site.
"However, the accused miserably failed to fulfill the corresponding duty and paid no heed to warning given to her by the police officials declaring her protest as unlawful. The accused when claiming Freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)b), failed to read the reasonable restriction on this right contained in Article 19(2) and Article 19(3). The blatant failure to adhere to the undertakings Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H as well as giving a deaf ear to the warnings clearly given on the loud hailers by the senior police officer, speak volumes about the conduct of the accused. The warnings even contained caution that climbing barricades could hurt the accused and protesters as well as the police officials present at the protest site. Even these cautions fell on deaf ears. Accordingly, this defence too, would not help the case of the accused and cannot absolve her from consequences of her act," the court said.
The prosecution alleged that on 29.07.2024, the accused along with other protesters came to the barricades towards the Tolstoy Road and started raising slogans, being adamant to “gherao” (surround/siege) the Parliament.
It was alleged that while senior cops employed loud hailers to warn the protesters about the imposition of Section 163 BNSS and requested to end their protest, however the protesters, on being instigated by the accused, did not pay any heed to the same.
It is further stated that the accused and the protesters pushed the female and male police officials, jumped the barricades and some of them even blocked the road opposite Free Church by lying on the main road which hindered public's right of way.
Meanwhile the defence argued that the protest was a peaceful, symbolic, constitutionally protected protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India for the implementation of women's reservation in Parliament — a cause that has since been accepted and acted upon by Parliament.
It was argued that there is no proof whatsoever of “assault” or “criminal force” against any public servant within the meaning of Section 132 of the BNS and there is no MLC to that effect. There is no proof of any “obstruction” in any “public way” within the meaning of Section 285 of the BNS as the accused never crossed the exempted area and that the entire investigation is a tutored, mala fide and politically motivated exercise with grave material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
Finding that Lamba had both actus reus and mens rea to commit the offences, the court convicted her under Sections 132 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 221(Obstructing the public servant in the discharge of public functions) , 223(a)(Disobedience to the order duly promulgated by public servant) , 285 (Danger/obstruction in the public way or line of navigation) BNS.
Case title: State v Alka Lamba
Cr. Case No. 14/2025