In a matter that gripped national attention, the Delhi High Court recently addressed the bail application of Manoranjan D, one of six individuals implicated in the December 13, 2023 breach of security at the Parliament. The incident, which occurred on the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attack on the Parliament, involved two individuals surreptitiously entering the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery and releasing yellow smoke canisters—a gesture perceived as a symbolic protest. Images and videos capturing the intruders chanting slogans and deploying colored smoke went viral, triggering widespread alarm and leading to immediate adjournment of the parliamentary session . Four additional individuals—including Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad—were implicated for similar activities carried out outside the precincts of Parliament.
Delhi Police lodged charges against the accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sought denial of bail, citing threats to national security. In response, Manoranjan D filed a bail petition challenging a trial court’s denial of relief. His plea emphasized that while their method of protest may have been misguided, there was no terrorist intent or motive to cause physical harm to MPs. His counsel submitted that the actions did not fulfill the offense under Sec. 15 of UAPA, which defines "terrorist act" . It was additionally contended that no incriminating materials had been recovered from him, nor was there any antecedent evidence of planning or conspiracy.
During the hearing, the Bench comprised of Justices Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Chandra Dhari Singh questioned Delhi Police’s grounds for invoking UAPA. The petition sought a critical inquiry into whether entering the Parliament and deploying non-metal smoke canisters truly constituted a "terrorist act" under UAPA. The judges remarked on the procedural rigor required for labeling an act as terror-related, especially considering that the devices carried by the accused were non-lethal and would have passed undetected through the metal detectors—evoking comparisons to innocuous items used in IPL matches or during Holi festivities.
The Court emphasized that while the intrusion into the Lok Sabha was unquestionably serious, the mere presence of smoke canisters does not inherently imply terror intent. The fact that they were non-metallic, non-lethal protest tools raised questions about whether UAPA charges were proportionate or legally sustainable . The Bench underscored the gravity of a Parliament breach, but they also highlighted that the primary definitional element of UAPA offenses involves clear intent to create terror or disrupt governance—not symbolic protest alone.
Delhi Police’s justification for applying UAPA centered around the symbolic significance of the act, which in their view sought to evoke "haunting reminders" of the 2001 attack and thereby stoke fear. The petition also communicated that the alleged conduct was premeditated rather than impulsive—supported by coordinated use of digital communication platforms, symbolic color usage, timing tied to the 2001 attack’s anniversary, and employment of secure messaging apps such as Signal .
Further, the Court reviewed police claims that digital evidence demonstrated that Manoranjan D and co-accused sought to "revive" memories of the 2001 attack in the new Parliament building and that their conduct evoked "terror-like atmosphere" among MPs. Nevertheless, the Bench remained mindful that compelling invocation of UAPA requires satisfying statutory thresholds regarding intent and capability toward terror, rather than merely invoking shock or symbolism; hence they demanded more compelling reasoning to justify the invocation of UAPA in a bail judgment .
Consequently, the High Court issued notice to Delhi Police and scheduled Manoranjan’s bail application for comprehensive hearing on July 24, 2025. This move indicates the Court’s intention to critically assess whether UAPA is an appropriate legal tool for this incident or if lesser charges under the Indian Penal Code (e.g., trespass, mischief, disrupting public service) would have been more proportionate .
This preliminary decision fits into a broader pattern of judicial skepticism regarding the expanded use of UAPA. Earlier plea hearings for Co‑accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat spotlighted similar concerns. On May 7, 2025, the Court raised pointed questions, such as whether non-lethal smoke canisters could reasonably fall within the ambit of UAPA’s terror-related definitions, and whether Parliament’s sanctity alone suffices to classify such acts as terror offenses. The Court contended that without lethal intent or weaponry, the scope for UAPA may well be overstretched.
At earlier stages (in April 2025), authorities defended UAPA charges by aligning them with the capacity to threaten democracy, create fear, and disrupt parliamentary business by marking the 2001 attack’s anniversary deliberately. But the Court signaled that invoking UAPA demands more than symbolic intent—it must be tied to overt capability and factual grounding illustrating a threat to the sovereignty or security of the State.
Compounding this legal complexity, precedents such as Neelam Azad’s earlier bail challenges saw the Court intervene over procedural aspects. In December 2023, the Delhi High Court restrained a trial court from disclosing the UAPA FIR copy to Neelam, underscoring procedural safeguards around sensitive UAPA investigations. Similar judicial circumspection was observed in other UAPA bail cases such as those involving PFI, Umar Khalid, and suspects in communal riot cases—where bail is typically denied unless the prosecution evidence is convincingly anchored in terror-oriented intentions.
The High Court’s conduct in the current matter aligns with this judicial trajectory. On one hand, it respects the seriousness of the Parliament breach—something not to be trivialized. On the other, it refuses to let the alarmist moment escalate to blanket terror charges without detailed evaluation. Through focused judicial questioning about the nature of evidence and legal rationale, the Court reinforced that UAPA is not a catch-all for high-profile security breaches, but a law intended for deep-seated conspiracies to disrupt public order, foment insurrection, or attack the sovereignty of India.
This careful scrutiny ensures that public anxiety or political fallout does not override the rights of the accused or the legal presumption of innocence. Bail under UAPA is notoriously difficult, necessitating clear prima facie evidence of intent and capacity to jeopardize state security. The Court’s probing reflects an effort to balance national security and individual freedom in accord with constitutional justice.
The grave implications of a potential bail order are enormous—not only for Manoranjan D personally, but also for judicial precedent. If bail were granted in this case absent definitive demonstration of terrorist intent, it could weaken the deterrence power of UAPA, making it more challenging to prevent Parliament breaches in the future. Conversely, if UAPA were improperly applied to symbolic protest, it could mark a troubling expansion of the law’s reach—potentially criminalizing political dissent or protest abroad from legitimate, non-violent expression.
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court’s approach—issuing notice, advancing the proceedings, and demanding a detailed justification from police—is emblematic of judicial restraint grounded in due process. By separating factual circumstance from legal categorization, the Court aims to figure out whether the conduct qualifies as "terrorist act" in law or is better suitably prosecuted under other penal provisions. The July 24 hearing, thus, promises a defining moment, where the Court will decide whether the invocation of UAPA in this case is legally sound or constitutionally vulnerable.
In sum, the decision to issue notice in Manoranjan D’s bail petition is a critical juncture, highlighting the tension between state security claims and legal thresholds under UAPA. It reflects the Delhi High Court’s insistence that symbolic protest—even within the hallowed halls of Parliament—needs to satisfy strict standards of terrorist intent, lest UAPA become a blunt instrument. The upcoming hearing will determine whether the balance of liberty and security is correctly struck in this high-profile incident.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.