"Why Parliament, December 13?" Delhi High Court Asks Accused In Security Breach Case
New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked those arrested in the 2023 Parliament security breach case the reason for choosing a specific date and place for protests when they were aware of earmarked spots for protests in the capital.
A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar posed the query while hearing bail pleas of accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who were arrested in the case.
In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and sloganeered before they were overpowered by some MPs.
Around the same time, two other accused -- Amol Shinde and Azad -- allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)" outside the Parliament premises.
The court on Tuesday reserved its order on the pleas, but asked the accused, "Why did you choose that date (December 13, which is also the date of the 2001 Parliament attack) for your protest? Why did you choose that place when you know that it is the Parliament? When there are designated places to protest, why did you choose that day and place and then decide to hold your protest in and around the Parliament? Would that not amount to overawing the country?" The counsel said the real intention behind the act would be determined during the trial.
He argued the alleged act did not fall under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), defining a terror activity.
The high court asked the prosecution to inform whether or not the grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused at the time of arrest.
The high court was informed that the trial court has fixed the matter for June 5 for hearing arguments on framing of charges.
It asked the trial court to proceed further and hear the arguments on the charge on that day.
The court also gave instances of certain situations and said if the accused had gone to the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar for protests, even with smoke canisters, it would not be an issue, but the specific choice of Parliament was questionable.
"If you had gone to Jantar Mantar with smoke canisters, no problem. If you would have gone even in the boat club, even though it is prohibited.. even then we would have seen it later on. But when you choose Parliament, and what makes it worse is that the Parliament is in session on a day when the attendance would have been the maximum and the parliamentarians pay homage to martyrs of the 2001 Parliament attack, then whether it can prima facie come under Section 15 of the UAPA is what we will have to consider. We will have to think very hard...," it said.
The court also asked the police to explain whether carrying or using a smoke canister, inside and outside Parliament, attracted UAPA and if it fell under the definition of terrorist activities.
The bail pleas were opposed by the prosecution, which said during the preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that the accused, Azad and Shind,e were associates of Sharma and Manoranjan D, and they together committed the terror act.
Calling it a preplanned act, it alleged the accused destroyed evidence, including cell phones and SIM cards.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the prosecution, argued that the noxious substance coming out of smoke canisters contacted the bodies of the parliamentarians, which would be covered under the definition of criminal force.
"It is not an assault or attack on ABC. It is an assault on those who represent the electorate of this country; 140 crore people are crystallised and subsumed in a particular place,e which is the temple of democracy," he said.
He argued that specifically choosing Parliament and December 13 brought the act within the act of "threatening or likely to threaten the security of the country" and "likely to strike terror" under the UAPA, which was evidenced from the fact that the parliamentarians expressed their anguish in various interviews to the media.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
NIA to probe ex-Bajrang Dal leader's murder in Karnataka
The Centre has handed over the probe into the murder of former Bajrang Dal member Suhas Shetty in Karnataka last month to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), officials aware of the matter said on Sunday. The ministry of home affairs (MHA), in its notification dated June 7, ordered the central agency to investigate the case, citing implications on national security and the need to uncover a larger conspiracy. 'The Central Government is of the opinion that a Scheduled Offence under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, has been committed... and it is required to be investigated by the National Investigation Agency in accordance with the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008,' the notification said. According to police, Suhas was travelling with five of his associates near Kinnikambla in Bajpe area of Mangaluru on the night of May 1 when their vehicle was intercepted by five-six assailants, who then dragged the 30-year-old out of the vehicle and hacked him to death. The incident triggered communal tensions in the region, prompting authorities to impose prohibitory orders under section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). So far, twelve people have been arrested in connection with Shetty's murder. The Centre's decision comes a month after the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Karnataka demanded an NIA inquiry into the incident, with the party accusing the Congress-led state government of 'going soft' on the issue. 'Why is the Congress government unwilling to hand over the case to the NIA? What are they afraid of?' BJP lawmaker Captain Brijesh Chowta said on May 5, after the Congress dismissed the murder as a case of personal rivalry. When asked about NIA taking over the probe, chief minister Siddaramaiah, on Sunday, said, 'I have asked DG and IGP MA Saleem to seek legal advice from the advocate general.' In its notification, the MHA said that the murder appeared to be a targeted killing carried out in public to create fear, allegedly by members of the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI). 'In this case, sections 10 r/w 41, 13, 15, 17, 18 & 20 of UA(P) Act, 1967 are attracted, as it is related to targeted killing of an individual in public view with the intention to create terror in the minds of people and the accused persons involved in the case are allegedly members of Popular Front of India (PFI), an unlawful association,' the order read.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
2034 earliest for simultaneous polls under existing Bills: One Nation, One Election panel chief
P P Chaudhary, BJP MP and chairman of the Joint Committee of Parliament on Bills relating to 'One Nation, One Election', has told The Indian Express that the earliest that simultaneous elections can be held under the existing Bills is 2034, and the committee may go beyond the draft law to suggest ways to keep polls aligned, including recommending a provision for a constructive or positive vote of no-confidence. In an interview with The Indian Express, Chaudhary, responding to a question on how long it would take the committee to finalise its recommendations, said members had unanimously decided to visit all states and Union Territories – a process that would take about two to two-and-a-half years. So far, the committee has visited two states: Uttarakhand and Maharashtra. The Bills were introduced in Lok Sabha in December last year and were almost immediately referred to the Chaudhary-led committee which has been holding consultations with stakeholders for feedback. Although the draft legislation provides for a one-time measure to bring Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in sync, Chaudhary felt that the committee could make additional recommendations to address how synchronisation should be maintained. One such suggestion could be a constructive vote of no-confidence which, as is the case in Germany, requires members of a legislature who bring a no-confidence motion against a government to have the numbers to form the government instead. Asked when the first simultaneous elections would be held, he said: 'The committee will deliberate; Parliament will decide. We can't say when, but the Bill says the first session of Parliament, if it happens with the appointed date, then it would be from 2034.' The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill), 2024 provide for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and Assemblies. If passed, the Bills provide for the President notifying the appointed date on the first sitting of a newly-elected Lok Sabha and every state or UT Assembly elected after that appointed date would have its term curtailed to align with the Lok Sabha. This would provide for simultaneous elections to be held when the five-year term of the Lok Sabha ends. The Bills also provide for elections to be held for the remainder term in case a government falls before the five-year term. Asked what would happen if a Lok Sabha or Assembly election returns a hung verdict or if a Union or state government falls, Chaudhary said: 'The Constitution does not mention no-confidence motion even now; it is governed by Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. We can bring in some provisions for stability. We can recommend new provisions in the Constitution.' He said the committee could deliberate on the issue and it was for Parliament to decide. 'If some impediments are there in the Constitution, those impediments may be redressed after discussion with all the members. Constructive no-confidence motion, like the German model, can be discussed. Once you bring a no-confidence motion, then at the same time, you should bring a confidence motion. In the rarest of rare situations, the Leader of the House can be elected on the floor of the House like the Speaker is. But, this situation will not arise. We have seen that the electorate does not support those who bring a no-confidence motion,' he said. 'All members will discuss and if there is a requirement to incorporate something or make additions to the Bill in the national interest, I believe the committee will recommend. If our end goal is to achieve 'One Nation, One Election', then definitely we will recommend amendments to enable that,' he said. The Bills had been introduced by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on December 17, 2024 and were based on the recommendations of the High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind. Responding to criticism from some in the Opposition that the move would be anti-democratic and against federalism, Chaudhary, who is BJP MP from Pali in Rajasthan, said simultaneous elections would further the cause of democracy. 'In our experience, the states where elections are held simultaneously, the voter turnout is 10-20% more. Is that in the interest of or against democracy? If there is only 40% polling and the PM or CM is elected with 21% of the votes, is that democracy? I believe polling will cross 80% if we have simultaneous elections. The expression of the will of the people will be more robust and it will strengthen democracy. Not holding simultaneous elections is anti-democratic,' he said. He maintained that the Bills only 'fixed the time schedule' of elections and did not affect the basic structure of the Constitution, federalism and free and fair elections. He said Article 327 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to make provision with respect to elections to legislatures. When it comes to federalism, he said the Supreme Court, in the SR Bommai case in 1994, had reinforced that federalism is a basic feature and that the Bills before the committee do not infringe upon this as the powers of the Union and states remain the same. 'The first three elections were held simultaneously until 1967. Were those elections against federalism? Some Assembly elections are still held with Lok Sabha, is that against federalism? Has any regional party in those states demanded separate elections? Look at the example of TDP in Andhra Pradesh or BJD in Odisha. This argument is untenable. We welcome anyone who wants to come before the committee with such an argument, with foundations. We will deal with it. If there is no basis, we cannot deal with such an argument properly,' he said. The Bills, he said, did not alter the accountability of the government to Parliament and that holding frequent elections did not mean that the government would be more accountable. 'We have a parliamentary form of democracy. The executive is accountable 24×7 to Parliament,' he said. Asked about the concerns of regional parties that holding simultaneous elections would lead to regional issues being sidelined, he said voters were capable of electing different parties at the Centre and state. 'The voters today are very intelligent and politically educated. We can't underestimate the Indian voters. Underestimating them will tantamount to undermining them. The voters, particularly in rural areas like where I come from, know who to vote for in national elections based on national issues, and in local elections, based on local issues,' he said. Chaudhary said the cost of frequent elections was borne by the education system, particularly government schools where teachers are sent on election duty for months, and the economy. On how much it would cost to hold simultaneous elections, he said it would be 'maximum Rs15,000 crore'. But this, he said, would be a small amount when compared to the benefit to the economy in terms of fewer disruptions to governance, policy-making and investments. On the other hand, he said the practice of announcing freebies and caste-based politics around elections would also be reduced if all elections were held once in five years. As a part of the committee's hearings, he said all states and UTs had been asked to prepare reports on the impact of frequent elections to their economy and society. Stakeholders like the Indian Bank Association were also asked to study the impact of simultaneous elections. The Committee has so far met former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and several former Supreme Court and High Court judges as a part of its consultations. He said the committee plans on meeting more legal luminaries, apart from political leaders and other stakeholders in states. Asked how the BJP would be able to have the Constitutional amendment passed as it required two-thirds majority, which the NDA does not have, he said he believed the parties who think of the national interest would support the Bills. 'It is not in the party's interest, it is in the national interest. It will not take time to be passed if they think in national interest. I have full faith that the parties that think of national interest will support. If Congress or any other party thinks of national interest first, then not just 2/3, but we will get 3/4 majority,' he said. The committee, comprising 39 members and two co-opted members, had been given an extension until the Monsoon session during the last session.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Northeast Delhi riots: After judge's transfer, where does the ‘larger conspiracy' case stand?
Arguments on charge in the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case will have to begin afresh as the judge who had been hearing the case for the last 18 months has been transferred. Out of the 18 accused arrested in the case, 12 have been in jail for over four years. From October to May 2025, five accused — including former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Safoora Zargar — had completed their arguments on charge. The prosecution also completed its arguments during day-to-day hearings. After the remaining persons finished their arguments, the trial of the case would've begun. Family members and lawyers of the accused called the delay a 'punishment'. Shortly after the riots broke out, which left 53 dead and 700 injured, the Delhi Police Special Cell started investigating the alleged conspiracy behind them. During its investigation, it booked the 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC. The case of the Special Cell was that the riots were the result of a months-long 'deep-rooted' conspiracy allegedly hatched after the Citizenship Amendment Bill got a nod from the Cabinet in December 2019. Between 2020 and 2023, police filed four supplementary chargesheets. With their final chargesheet in June 2023, they marked the completion of their probe into the case. Their case was primarily built on CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, and statements of protected witnesses. In October 2023, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court had directed that arguments on the charge be conducted on a day-to-day basis. Two months later, ASJ Rawat was transferred and ASJ Sameer Bajpai replaced him. On September 4 last year, the Special Cell officially told ASJ Bajpai that they had completed their investigation. Following this, the judge ordered that arguments on charge would commence from September 5. On May 30 this year, ASJ Bajpai was transferred following a reshuffle of 135 judges across Delhi. 'With the chargesheet of several thousand pages, more than 700 witnesses, other issues and such transfers, we don't know how long it will take. This is very unfortunate. Our sons and daughters are languishing in jail,' said Umar's father, Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas. 'The problem is that section 43(D) of the UAPA lists extremely stringent bail conditions. The judge has to first make up their mind whether a prima facie case is made out or not. For this, arguments on charge need to be complete. It becomes impossible to get bail otherwise,' said advocate Rajiv Mohan, who represented Husain in court. Along with Mohan, advocate Tara Narula also appeared for Husain. Asif Iqbal Tanha, one of the six accused out on bail, told The Indian Express, 'For the people who are in jail, the delay in trial is very problematic. But even those who are out on bail have various restrictions.' On June 2, ASJ Lalit Kumar, who replaced ASJ Bajpai, heard the case for the first time. The Delhi Police and the accused persons were directed by the judge to furnish their schedule regarding the time frame and manner in which they will address arguments. The court also stated that arguments on charge must be 'expedited'. On June 6, ASJ Kumar asked the prosecution and the defence how long they would take to conclude the arguments. 'I will take 25-27 hours to outline the entire conspiracy… we have submitted a 1,200-page compilation. For the assistance of the honorable Court, I will keep it very concise,' Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had said. The 18 accused persons in this case are Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha (all six on bail); Tahir Husain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Athar Khan (all 12 in jail).
