Security breach case: Why Parliament, December 13? Delhi HC asks accused

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 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 charge on that day.

The court also gave instances of certain situations and said if the accused would have 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 accused Azad and Shinde 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 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 crystalised and subsumed in a particular place which is the temple of democracy," he said.

He argued specifically choosing Parliament and December 13 brought the act within the act of "threatening or likely to threaten the security of 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.