The Delhi High Court said the 2023 Parliament security breach on December 13, the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, cannot be treated as a coincidence. The observation came while hearing bail pleas of accused in the case, with the court listing the matter for further hearing in February.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday, January 15, observed that the Parliament security breach of 2023, which took place on December 13, could not be treated as a mere accident or chance incident, especially since the date marks the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Sudha Jain made the observation while hearing bail pleas filed by three accused — Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma and Lalit Jha — in connection with the breach.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the accused argued that there was no link between the 2001 terror attack and the 2023 incident. He submitted that the accused were only protesting against unemployment and had no intention to create fear or disrupt national security.
However, the Bench was not convinced and firmly responded,
“It can’t be a coincidence… 13 December can’t be a coincidence”.
The senior advocate representing the accused acknowledged that the manner in which the protest was carried out was wrong. At the same time, he urged the Court to consider that the accused should not remain behind bars for an indefinite period.
Emphasising this point, he stated,
“They had anger, but I totally agree that it was not the way to protest. If we look at history, even the English people did not keep people behind bars for an indefinite period,” the counsel said.
The defence further highlighted that charges in the case were yet to be framed and pointed out that the accused were educated young individuals with no previous criminal background. According to the defence, prolonged incarceration at this stage would be unjustified.
On the other hand, the prosecution informed the Court that it had already completed its arguments on the framing of charges before the trial court.
Taking note of the submissions, the High Court adjourned the matter for further hearing in February. The Bench also directed both sides to examine a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gulfisha Fatima, who was granted bail in a 2020 Delhi riots case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The present appeals were filed after the trial court rejected the bail pleas of Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma and Lalit Jha in December 2024. Meanwhile, two other accused in the same case — Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat — had earlier been granted bail by the High Court in July 2025.
The case arises from a major security lapse on December 13, 2023, when Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour. They are accused of releasing yellow gas from canisters and raising slogans before being restrained by Members of Parliament.
At around the same time, two other accused — Amol Shinde and Azad — allegedly sprayed coloured gas outside the Parliament premises while shouting
“tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won’t work)”.
Following the incident, the Delhi Police registered an FIR on December 14, 2023, invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code along with stringent sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The matter continues to remain under judicial scrutiny as the High Court examines the question of bail in light of the seriousness of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CJI Surya Kant
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
