Unauthorisedly Entering Parliament To Show Protest Not Permitted But Will It Attract UAPA? High Court Asks In 2023 Security Breach Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 7) questioned the Delhi Police as to whether offence under the stringent UAPA is made out against the accused persons in the 2023 Parliament security breach case.A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice C Vaidyanathan Shankar remarked that even though undoubtedly entering inside the Parliament is not a joke and cannot be a form of protest, but how was UAPA made out against the accused persons. “The question is whether having smoke canisters inside the Parliament would attract UAPA at all?,” the Court orally asked the Delhi Police which was represented by ASG Chetan Sharma. The Court was hearing the bail pleas filed by accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat. For context, both the accused were present outside the Parliament. “Nobody can even play a prank or do something like a protest in the parliament building which is the pride of the Country. Nobody is saying anything on that but the question is you have filed the chargesheet under UAPA, having stricter bail considerations. Question is whether the offence of UAPA or any other act is committed? There are other acts as well. No problem in that. The issue is whether UAPA offence is made out,” Justice Prasad remarked. The Court also said that there are other enactments which can be invoked against the accused like the Indian Penal Code, while also underscoring that the Court should not be misunderstood of not taking the issue seriously. “This is not to be taken lightly. This deserves the seriousness which is being given and it is evident from the fact that you are appearing. We are only trying to interpret the provisions of a serious Act with serious consequences,” Justice Shankar told ASG. ASG Sharma referred to the date of incident, also the date of 2001 parliament attack, and argued that the same was not mere consequence and that it was a premeditated act. At this stage, Justice Prasad remarked that the smoke canisters used by the accused persons did not have metal inside them which was evident from the fact that they passed through security and metal detectors. “It doesn't have metal. It is like our normal, like we said earlier, we use in IPL or holi. It is not noxious. We are not for a moment saying that what they have done is correct. We are not saying that they have done a prank or it was their protest. No. This is not a form of protest. You're distributing a place where serious work gets done. It's not a joke. It is not a place where you can… you cannot equate yourself with Bhagat Singh. But still the question is UAPA,” the Court said. To this, the counsel for the Delhi Police responded that there are statements to show that the parliamentarians were feeling noxious and that the whole incident has to be seen in larger context, especially the date chosen and carrying smoke canisters was not a mere symbolic gesture. ASG Sharma then referred to the definition of Section 15 of UAPA which defines a terrorist act, and emphasised on the words “intent” and “likely to strike terror.”He submitted that because the incident happened inside the parliament, even a small act there will have to be seen with a broader magnitude. The Court then asked ASG to make further submissions on the next date. “We have to say something to strengthen our judgment which has the propensity of being used in other cases. This is a division bench of this Court. The judgment will be applicable in entire State of Delhi. Can be used in other parts of the Country and that is what I am echoing,” Justice Prasad said. The matter will now be heard on May 19. Earlier, the bench had orally remarked that if using smoke canister is a terrorist act, then every holi and IPL match will also attract the offence under UAPA.The Court had asked the Delhi Police to explain as to whether carrying or using a smoke canister, which is not lethal, is covered for the offence of terrorist act under UAPA.While opposing Azad's bail plea, the Delhi Police told Court that the accused persons in the case wanted to bring back “haunted memories” of the 2001 Parliament attack to the “majestic” new parliament building.In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, two persons jumped into the chamber of Lok Sabha from the public gallery when the Zero Hour was in session. The duo was identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D.In the photographs and videos that surfaced on social media, the two were seen holding canisters which released yellow gas. They were also shouting slogans. However, they were overpowered by some of the Member of Parliaments (MPs).Two other accused, identified as Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, also sprayed coloured gas from similar canisters outside the premises of the Parliament. They were reportedly shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi.”Case Title: MANORANJAN D v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Unauthorisedly Entering Parliament To Show Protest Not Permitted But Will It Attract UAPA? High Court Asks In 2023 Security Breach Case

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Unauthorisedly Entering Parliament To Show Protest Not Permitted But Will It Attract UAPA? High Court Asks In 2023 Security Breach Case

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers