Latest news with #NeelamAzad
New Indian Express
21-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
House security breach: HC questions choice of venue, reserves bail order
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the bail pleas of Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the December 13, 2023, Parliament security breach, questioning why the accused chose the Parliament on that particular day for their protest when there are designated places for demonstrations in the capital. A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar heard arguments from the accused's lawyers and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing Delhi Police, before reserving the order. During the hearing, the bench asked, 'Why pick that date and that place, knowing it is the Parliament? Does holding a protest there not intimidate the nation?' The accused's counsel replied that these matters should be settled during trial and argued that their actions do not amount to a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court said it must decide whether the choice of place, date, and manner of the protest collectively qualifies as an offence under the UAPA.
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Why December 13 and Parliament?': Delhi HC asks accused in 2023 security breach case
The Delhi high court on Tuesday questioned the accused in the 2023 security breach, asking why they chose December 13, the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, and why they targeted the complex instead of using designated protest sites. A division bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar raised the query while hearing the bail pleas of accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who are among those arrested in connection with the incident. The case pertains to a serious security breach that occurred on December 13, 2023 , the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. On that day, 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 shouted slogans before being subdued by MPs. Simultaneously, two other accused, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while chanting slogans such as 'tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)' outside the Parliament premises. While reserving its order on the bail pleas, the court asked the accused, 'Why did you choose that date (December 13 which is also the date of 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?' Counsel for the accused responded that the actual intention behind the act would be established during the course of the trial. He further contended that the alleged actions did not fall under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which defines terrorist activity. The court also directed the prosecution to clarify whether the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused at the time of their detention. It was informed that the trial court has scheduled the matter for June 5 to hear arguments on the framing of charges. Accordingly, the High Court asked the trial court to proceed with the hearing on charges as planned. The Delhi high court also cited hypothetical scenarios, observing that had the accused staged their protest at locations like the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar, even with smoke canisters, it might not have raised serious concerns. However, their deliberate choice of Parliament as the protest site was deeply 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.' the bench observed. The court also asked the police to clarify whether carrying or using a smoke canister, inside or outside Parliament, falls under the definition of terrorist activity and attracts charges under the UAPA. Opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution said the preliminary inquiry revealed that accused Azad and Shinde were associates of Sharma and Manoranjan D, and that they had jointly carried out the act. With PTI inputs
Indian Express
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why UAPA, not any other law, when normal smoke canisters used? asks Delhi HC in Parliament security breach case
In a bail plea by the 2023 Parliament security breach accused Neelam Azad, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday inquired from the prosecution if the accused could have been booked under other legislations, instead of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The oral remark came after a division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed from the forensic lab report findings that the smoke canisters used by the accused in the Parliament were not noxious. At the last hearing, the court had inquired from the prosecution if the use of non-lethal smoke canisters, as was used by the accused, would be in the ambit of the stringent UAPA. Justice Prasad, addressing the Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, said, 'See, it's very clear that these smoke canisters don't have any metal inside them, that's why they passed through the metal detectors…so it is normally what we use in Holi or IPL …neither (are the smoke canisters used by the accused) the noxious (ones) available on (ecommerce website) are not for a minute saying that what they (accused) did was correct…this is not a form of protest, you are actually disrupting a place where serious work happens, laws for the country is made, you can't eulogise yourself as martyrs like Bhagat Singh.' Justice Prasad went on to remark, 'The question as to whether having these smoke canisters inside and outside the Parliament would attract UAPA at all? Would it come within the definition of Section 18 (of at all otherwise their liberty cannot be curtailed, the trial can go on).' Justice Prasad also mulled, 'Nobody can play a prank or protest in a Parliament building, which is supposedly the pride of the country…But the question is chargesheet filed under UAPA…there could be other Acts under which you can proceed, which is no problem…but the issue is, if offence under UAPA is made out?' The court has now kept the matter next for consideration on May 19. The security breach took place on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, when the accused allegedly launched coordinated gas attacks, both inside and outside Parliament, during the Zero Hour on December 13, 2023. While two of the accused jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery and opened smoke canisters that released yellow gas, outside the Parliament premises, two others — Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad — sprayed coloured gases from canisters while shouting 'tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't be allowed)'. The six accused were later arrested under UAPA and sections of the Indian Penal Code by the Delhi Police Special Cell.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Parliament security breach: HC to hear bail plea of accused on May 7
Accepting the request for adjournment on behalf of the prosecution, the court said it would hear on May 7 the bail pleas of Neelam Azad, the sole woman accused in the case, and Mahesh Kumawat Press Trust of India New Delhi The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said it would hear on May 7 the bail pleas of two accused arrested in the 2023 Parliament security breach case. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, before whom the bail pleas were listed for hearing on Tuesday, was informed by the prosecutor that an additional solicitor general has to argue on behalf of the prosecution and he was unavailable today. Accepting the request for adjournment on behalf of the prosecution, the court said it would hear on May 7 the bail pleas of Neelam Azad, the sole woman accused in the case, and Mahesh Kumawat. The counsel for Azad opposed the adjournment request saying "it was a delaying tactics" and such a conduct was not good for the country. The court, however, shot back saying, "enough, you have irritated us". Earlier, the high court had asked the police to explain whether carrying or using a smoke canister, which is not lethal, is covered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for the offence of terrorist activities. 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 shouted slogans 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" outside Parliament premises. The court had orally observed that if a smoke canister, which was freely available in the market, will attract UAPA then people would be committing this offence in every Holi festival and even Indian Premier League (IPL) matches will also attract this provision. It had asked the prosecutor to take instructions on the aspect and apprise the court. The counsel for Azad has submitted that the woman be granted bail as the provisions of UAPA cannot be attracted in the case. As per section 15 UAPA, the definition of terrorist act says "Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,'? "By using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country". Seeking bail for Azad, her counsel had said she was not carrying any explosives in Parliament and was standing outside. Opposing the bail plea, the police had said the accused had intended to bring back "haunted memories" of the 2001 Parliament attack. The police had said detailed investigations have categorically established that accused Manoranjan D and his associates had always been planning a disruptive terror attack in Parliament. The trial court had rejected Azad's bail plea, saying there was sufficient evidence to believe that allegations against her were "prima facie" true. It noted that all the accused persons -- Azad, Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat -- already had the knowledge about the threat given by designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu for targeting Parliament on December 13, 2023. Despite the threat perception, the accused persons being aware of the same carried out the alleged offence in Parliament on the same day, it observed. Four were taken into custody from the spot, while Jha and Kumawat were arrested later. The prosecution had opposed the bail application, calling the offence "grave". It was alleged that Azad was involved in disrupting the sovereignty and integrity of India. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Indian Express
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
If use of smoke canister is a terrorist act, every Holi & IPL match will also attract UAPA, says HC
The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that if the use of non-lethal smoke canister can be called a terrorist act, attracting charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), then 'every Holi' and every 'IPL match' will also attract UAPA. The court indicated that if a smoke canister, which was freely available in the market, would attract UAPA, then people would be committing this offence every Holi – using non-lethal smoke canisters to celebrate – and even Indian Premier League (IPL) matches will attract this provision. A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar were on Thursday hearing the bail plea moved by Neelam Azad, an accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case. Justice Prasad told the prosecution, '(According to petitioner) having this canister doesn't come within the four corners to attract UAPA… If that is so, then every Holi it will be UAPA… My brother (Justice Shankar) says every IPL match will be UAPA.' He asked the prosecution to 'take instructions on this and address us….' Azad's counsel Balraj Singh Malik told the bench that the type of canister used by Azad and other accused in the security breach case does not constitute 'explosives' under UAPA. He added that such canisters are easily available and sold during festivities. Earlier, the prosecution, opposing Azad's bail plea, had told HC that the accused wanted to bring back the 'haunted memories' of what had happened in the old Parliament — referring to the 2001 Parliament attack — to the 'majestic new Parliament building'. The security breach took place on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, when the accused allegedly launched coordinated gas attacks, both inside and outside Parliament, during the Zero Hour on December 13, 2023. While two of the accused jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery and opened smoke canisters that released yellow gas, outside the Parliament premises, two others — Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad — sprayed coloured gases from canisters while shouting 'tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't be allowed)'. The six accused were later arrested under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code by the Delhi Police Special Cell.
