Delhi HC: Parliament disruption a serious threat to democracy

The Delhi High Court made strong observations during the bail hearing of Manoranjan D, one of the accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case, stating that any disruption of Parliament’s functioning poses a grave threat to national security. A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur responded sharply to defense arguments that the accused had staged a "peaceful protest" by releasing non-toxic smoke and shouting slogans on unemployment, remarking:

The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt the Parliament. You disrupted the Parliament."

Key Developments in the Case

Incident Recap: On December 13, 2023, Manoranjan and Sagar Sharma jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors' gallery during a live session, deploying colored smoke, while Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde protested outside Parliament. All four were arrested for orchestrating the breach.

Bail Status: The court recently granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat (another accused) under strict conditions, including a ₹50,000 personal bond, regular police station visits, and a ban on media interactions.

Prosecution’s Stand: The Delhi Police, opposing bail, cited UAPA charges and argued the accused could flee, influence witnesses, or tamper with evidence. They submitted a 1,000-page chargesheet on June 7, 2024, detailing the conspiracy.

Defense’s Argument: Lawyers for the accused called the UAPA invocation "excessive", alleging it was meant to criminalize dissent. They also raised claims of assault inside Parliament after arrest.

Legal & Security Implications

The case, occurring on the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, has triggered a high-alert response. The Lieutenant Governor approved UAPA prosecution (Sections 16 & 18) based on a Tis Hazari Review Committee report, signaling the gravity of the charges. The Special Cell’s Counter-Intelligence Unit is leading the probe under IPC Sections 186, 353, 452, 153, 34, 120B, alongside UAPA.

Broader Debate: Protest vs. Terrorism

While the accused claim their act was a symbolic protest against unemployment and farmer issues, the judiciary and security agencies view it as a deliberate attack on democratic institutions. The court’s remarks underscore the fine line between dissent and disruption in sensitive environments like Parliament.