“The Petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters,” the Delhi High Court held while quashing an FIR over the August 2025 SSC demonstration at Ramlila Maidan.
New Delhi: Of the 44 people detained at the Ramlila Maidan protest of August 2025, one Staff Selection Commission aspirant has seen the case against him end. The Delhi High Court quashes FIR against SSC aspirant under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, holding that being present among the protesters could not, without more, make out the offence [Khurshid Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi through SHO PS Kamla Market].
The petition was allowed by Justice Sanjeev Narula on 13 October 2026. Advocates Gaurav Arya, Naveen Bamel, Harsh Goyal and Manav Trivedi appeared for the petitioner, and Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha for the State.
The protest and the FIR
The Delhi Police had permitted SSC aspirants to hold a peaceful demonstration at Ramlila Maidan on 24 and 25 August 2025 between 10 am and 5 pm over alleged irregularities in examinations. According to the prosecution, 800 to 1,000 people assembled, the organisers refused to wind up at the permitted hour, protesters stayed on after prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were announced over loudhailers, and some of them pushed and scuffled with the police.
FIR No. 351 of 2025 was registered at Kamla Market Police Station the same day, and 44 persons, including the petitioner, were detained. A chargesheet has since been filed against 29 persons and investigation against the rest continues. These are the prosecution’s allegations, and the Court has not decided the case against the other accused.
The petitioner’s case and the State’s status report
The petitioner said he was an aspirant who went to the venue to voice his grievances, and not an organiser or speaker, and that no act of disobedience, obstruction, violence or altercation was attributed to him. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
In a status report of 13 October 2026, the State said he remained at the venue despite directions to disperse. It added that he had joined the investigation on 3 October 2025 after a notice under Section 35 BNSS, and had been interrogated, bound down and released.
Section 223(a): knowledge, disobedience and a specific act
Looking at Section 223(a) BNS, the Court held that knowledge of the order and disobedience of it are essential elements, and that the disobedience must also cause, or tend to cause, the consequences the provision speaks of. Staying on at a venue after a dispersal order is known could amount to disobedience, the Court said, but the material did not show how the petitioner’s continued presence met that further requirement. The refusal to vacate, the instigation and the scuffling were attributed to the organisers or to the gathering as a whole:
Neither the impugned FIR nor the subsequent Status Report attributes any such conduct specifically to the Petitioner.
Section 3(5) BNS: no shared intention shown
On Section 3(5) BNS, the Court held that common intention requires the criminal act to be committed in furtherance of an intention shared by those held jointly liable. Taking part in the same demonstration does not by itself establish a shared intention to disobey police directions. Noting that the police did not allege that the petitioner failed to cooperate or obstructed the probe, the Court concluded:
The Petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters.
Quashed qua the petitioner alone
The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner. The Court made it clear that its observations are confined to his role and do not affect the investigation or proceedings against any other accused.
What police must show against each person
With prohibitory orders and mass detentions a recurring feature of protests in the capital, the order spells out what the police must show against each individual booked for staying on after a dispersal direction: knowledge of the order, a specific act of disobedience and its tendency to cause the harm the section targets. A list of names in an FIR covering a crowd does not supply that.
The reading of Section 3(5) BNS matters equally. Joint liability needs a shared intention, and the Court has refused to infer it from the bare fact that a person was part of the same gathering as those who allegedly scuffled with the police.
Case Title: Khurshid Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi through SHO PS Kamla Market [W.P.(CRL) 2356 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Gaurav Arya, Naveen Bamel, Harsh Goyal and Manav Trivedi for the petitioner; Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Amol Sinha with Advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan and Anshul Sharma for the State