“Case of political dissent, not terrorism”: Delhi HC while granting bail in parliament breach case
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court observed that the 2023 Parliament security breach was more an act of “political dissent” than terrorism, as it granted bail to two of the accused, Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat. A Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the protest was “symbolic”, lacked terrorist intent, and did not amount to an act threatening national integrity or causing public harm under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), reported The Hindu.
The court underlined that the actions of Azad and Kumawat did not constitute a terrorist act within the meaning of Sections 15 or 18 of the UAPA. “The activities of the appellants are of the nature of propagation of ideological messages and, in the opinion of this court, prima facie do not constitute a terrorist act,” the bench stated. “This case at this juncture appears to be a case of protest and political dissent.”
While noting that Kumawat was not present in Delhi during the incident, and Azad did not enter the Parliament building, the court observed that their involvement was limited and distinguishable from the co-accused who breached Parliament security from within the premises. “The Parliament represents the very basis of our democracy. It cannot be said that what the accused have done is a legitimate form of protest or demonstration. However, they have not propagated any movement against the interest of the nation,” the judges held.
Granting bail to both on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with two sureties of the same amount, the court imposed several conditions. The accused were prohibited from speaking to the press or posting about the case on social media. They are also restricted from leaving Delhi and must report to the investigating agency every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Crucially, the bench dismissed claims that the use of yellow smoke canisters amounted to use of explosives or substances of terror. “This court can take judicial notice that such canisters are used in IPL games, cricket matches, weddings, parties, and Holi celebrations,” it said. “The use of canisters which emitted yellow smoke alone does not raise a prima facie case against the appellants... Whether those canisters could have acted as explosives or not will be tested in trial.”
The court added that the smoke canisters used in open air did not, at this point, appear to cause any hazardous health injury, and this too would be a matter for trial. It also clarified that pamphlets found with Azad did not contain any content that abetted or incited a terrorist act. “There is nothing on record at this juncture to show that the appellants... intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of the country or have committed the act with intent to strike terror,” the court said.
Highlighting the lack of evidence pointing to actual harm, the court emphasized that the Lok Sabha Secretariat had categorically stated that no injury occurred during the breach. “There is complete lack of material at this juncture of loss of life, bodily injury or significant property damage,” the court noted, stating that Azad, who was outside the Parliament, “cannot be said to have committed any act which could have resulted in loss of life, bodily injury or significant property damage.”
While acknowledging that the protest took place on December 13, 2023,the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, the court said, “Even assuming that the date was chosen when there was a threat perception, at this juncture it can only be said that the attempt was to sensationalise the event to gain attention of people and get mileage from the incident.”
This, the court clarified, would not deter it from granting bail. The two accused had approached the High Court after a trial court denied their bail pleas, citing prima facie evidence. The Delhi Police had strongly opposed their applications, alleging an intention to revive memories of the 2001 Parliament attack.
The 2023 breach had occurred when accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow smoke from canisters, and raised slogans. Simultaneously, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad allegedly sprayed coloured gas and shouted "tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)" slogans outside the Parliament premises. Kumawat was arrested on December 16 for alleged conspiracy and destruction of evidence.
The High Court ruling, while granting bail, stopped short of legitimizing the protest venue, stating that “the choice and the place of protest is highly deprecable.” Nevertheless, it distinguished the actions of Azad and Kumawat from those who directly violated the sanctity of the Parliament chamber.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Riyan Parag likely to be fined 25 percent of match fees for vaping inside dressing room
New Delhi (PTI): Rajasthan Royals captain Riyan Parag is set to be fined 25 per cent of his match fee for bringing the game into "disrepute" after being caught vaping on camera during the IPL game against Punjab Kings in Mullanpur.
Parag's actions during the Royals' chase on Tuesday night drew condemnation on social media.
PTI has learned that on field umpires Tanmay Srivastava and Nitin Menon had not reported the matter to match referee Amit Sharma right after the game. They only did that after seeing visual proof and Sharma found Parag guilty for a code of conduct breach as per the IPL guidelines.
The Level 1 offences carries 25 per cent deduction from match fees and one demerit point.
"He is set to be fined a portion of his match fees and a demerit point for a Level 1 offence," said an IPL source.
The Indian government had banned e-cigarettes back in 2019, prohibiting their production, sale and distribution. As per the law, the offender faces imprisonment up to one year and/or a Rs one lakh fine for a first time offence.
"Article 2.21 of IPL Code of Conduct is intended to cover all types of conduct that bring the game into disrepute and which is not specifically and adequately covered by the specific offences set out elsewhere in this Code of Conduct, including Article 2.20," the IPL Code of Conduct states.
"By way of example, Article 2.21 may (depending upon the seriousness and context of the breach) prohibit, without limitation, the following: (a) public acts of misconduct; (b) unruly public behaviour; and (c) inappropriate comments which are detrimental to the interests of the game.
"When assessing the seriousness of the offence, the context of the particular situation, and whether it was deliberate, reckless, negligent, avoidable and/or accidental, shall be considered.
"Further, the person lodging the Report shall determine where on the range of severity the conduct lays (with the range of severity starting at conduct of a minor nature (and hence a Level 1 Offence) up to conduct of an extremely serious nature (and hence a Level 4 Offence)."
Since it is a Level 1 offence there was no need for a hearing.
Parag, who has not had the best of times with the bat this IPL, was seen inhaling an e-cigarette, also known as vaping, in the dressing room during the live broadcast of their game against Punjab Kings. Royals won the game to end Kings' unbeaten run in the tournament.
This is not the first controversy to hit the Royals this season. Earlier this month, team manager Romi Bhinder was fined Rs one lakh for breaching PMOA protocol after being found using his phone in the dugout.
IPL and BCCI officials involved in the conduct of the IPL termed it as a careless act in the age of social media and prying TV cameras.
Royals next host Delhi Capitals at home on Friday night.
