The court questioned if merely carrying or using a smoke canister, which is non-lethal and available freely in the market, could be considered a “terrorist activity” under UAPA.
New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has fixed April 29 to hear the bail plea of Neelam Azad, the only woman accused in the high-profile 2023 Parliament security breach case.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Seeks Police’s Reply on Bail Plea of Parliament Security Breach Accused
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that it will hear Neelam Azad’s bail plea together with a similar petition filed by co-accused Manoranjan D.
During a short hearing, the court raised a significant legal point about the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The court questioned if merely carrying or using a smoke canister, which is non-lethal and available freely in the market, could be considered a “terrorist activity“ under UAPA.
The bench remarked:
“You take instructions on this and address us… this canister with smoke which is freely available in the market does not come under the four corners so as to attract UA. If that is so, then in every Holi, everybody will come under this offence. Every IPL match will attract UA.”
The 2023 Parliament breach occurred on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. During zero hour, two accused – Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D – reportedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery, released yellow smoke from canisters, and raised slogans before being overpowered by Members of Parliament.
ALSO READ: Parliament Security Breach: Delhi Police Requests More Time for Investigation
At the same time, Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde were allegedly involved in a protest outside Parliament, where they released coloured smoke from canisters while shouting “tanashahi nahi chalegi“ (dictatorship will not be tolerated).
Azad’s lawyer argued for bail, saying that the charges under UAPA were not applicable in this case.
Under Section 15 of the UAPA, a terrorist act involves any activity intended to threaten India’s unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty, or intended to strike terror in people, especially when using explosives, firearms, or other dangerous substances. These actions should result in death, injuries, property damage, or disruption of essential services.
However, the prosecution strongly opposed Azad’s bail application. They called the offence “grave” and said that she was involved in activities that threatened India’s sovereignty and integrity.
The court has now asked the police to respond on the next hearing date and clarify whether using a non-lethal smoke canister falls under the UAPA’s strict anti-terror provisions.
