The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that disrupting the Parliament amounts to creating terror in the country, as it heard bail pleas filed by accused individuals in the 2023 Parliament security breach case.
A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur made the strong remark in response to submissions made by Manoranjan D’s counsel, who contended that opening coloured smoke canisters inside the Lok Sabha did not constitute a terrorist act. The defence argued that the accused aimed only to highlight unemployment and did not intend to cause fear or panic.
Rejecting the argument, the bench said, “The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt the Parliament. You disrupted the Parliament.”
The case relates to the December 13, 2023, breach where accused Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery while releasing coloured smoke and shouting slogans. Two others — Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde — simultaneously staged a protest outside the Parliament complex. The breach coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 terror attack on Parliament, raising alarm over security lapses.
All four were apprehended the same day, while co-accused Mahesh Kumawat and Vicky Jha surrendered the following day. The act, allegedly intended to draw Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attention to issues like unemployment and inflation, led to serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code.
Manoranjan had earlier moved the High Court against the trial court’s refusal to grant bail, arguing that the charges were vague and that UAPA provisions were wrongly applied. On Thursday, Sharma also filed a similar plea, seeking bail on grounds of parity with Azad and Kumawat, who were granted bail on July 2.
However, the court rejected the parity argument, noting a critical distinction. “You were inside the Parliament. There is no parity. You have to come on merits,” the bench stated, pointing out that the two individuals released on bail had only protested outside the complex.
The bench had previously, while granting bail to Azad and Kumawat, clarified that their symbolic protest did not constitute a terrorist act and lacked intent to cause substantial harm.
The court has now sought responses from the Delhi Police, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri and advocate Divya Yadav, and posted the matter for further hearing on October 8.
