In a stern ruling on the boundaries of democratic dissent, the Delhi High Court has refused to discharge nine protesters accused of throwing a burning effigy onto the guard room rooftop of BJP leader J P Nadda’s official residence in 2022.
Dismissing the petitioners’ plea, Justice Manoj Jain ruled that the absence of injuries does not dilute the gravity of the offense, stating that “merely because nobody got injured,” it cannot be argued that an attempt to murder charge is not made out.
The court characterized the incident not as a legitimate demonstration, but as a “brazenly disruptive activity” and a “shoot and scoot” tactic that has no place in a democratic society.
The June 2022 Incident
The case dates back to June 2022, when the nine accused—who were students pursuing professional degrees at the time—assembled outside Nadda’s official bungalow on Motilal Nehru Marg. They were protesting against the Union government’s Agniveer military recruitment scheme. Nadda was serving as the BJP National President at the time and currently serves as the Union Health Minister.
According to the prosecution, the demonstration quickly escalated. An FIR was subsequently lodged at the Tughlak Road police station, charging the protesters with:
- Section 307 of the IPC: Attempt to murder
- Section 436 of the IPC: Mischief by fire or explosive substance
- Additional charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, and criminal conspiracy.
In November 2025, a trial court dismissed the protesters’ pleas for discharge under Sections 307 and 436, prompting them to appeal to the Delhi High Court.
‘Brazenly Disruptive’: Court Rejects ‘Simple Protest’ Defense
Defending the students, Advocate Vimal Tyagi argued that the accused did not carry deadly weapons and only intended to stage a peaceful protest. The defense contended that because no one was hurt, the attempt to murder charge was unwarranted, suggesting that the court should instead apply Section 285 of the IPC (rash or negligent act involving fire).
Justice Manoj Jain strongly rejected this defense. Pointing to security footage, the judge noted that the CCTV evidence “completely demolishes” the argument of a peaceful protest.
“Can it be legitimately termed a ‘protest’ where the so-called protestors, after burning on road effigy of an individual, cross the road… the broad footpath and even the service road to throw burning portions of the effigy on the rooftop of the guard room of the official bungalow…?” Justice Jain asked in his May 16 order.
The court emphasized that the protesters fled in a “cowardly manner” immediately after the act, rather than remaining to let law enforcement take them into custody. “The answer is a resounding No. This is nothing but brazenly disruptive activity,” the court held.
Intent vs. Negligence
The High Court clarified key legal standards regarding the charges:
- On Attempt to Murder (Section 307): The court ruled that the petitioners could not deny knowing their actions were imminently dangerous. Throwing a burning effigy onto a building could have caused death, and the security personnel inside only escaped harm by “good fortune.”
- On Mischief by Fire (Section 436): The court dismissed the defense’s claim that the charge requires explosives, clarifying that Section 436 covers mischief caused by “not just explosive substance but even by fire.”
- On Negligence (Section 285): Justice Jain ruled out any element of negligence, stating, “What the petitioners did was not a negligent act; it was clearly an intentional act.”
Strictures and Penalty
The High Court dismissed the petition, labeling it “frivolous,” and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioners. The fine is to be paid to Bharat ke Veer, a voluntary donation fund run by the Ministry of Home Affairs to support the family members of Central Armed Police Forces personnel.
Reflecting on the nature of public demonstrations, Justice Jain observed: “To reiterate, protests do form a significant part of a democracy. But violence in the name of protest cannot be acceptable to any tenet of demosprudence. Such acts of shoot and scoot do not constitute protest. It is indeed a matter of serious concern that a section of society today thrives on such disruptive activities in the name of protest.”
Following the High Court’s ruling, defense counsel Advocate Tyagi stated that they plan to appeal the verdict.
