Delhi High Court pulls up accused in Parliament security breach case, says disrupting Parliament is the “best way to create terror”, asks police to respond to bail plea.
New Delhi: On July 24, the Delhi High Court has made a strong observation while hearing the bail plea of two men accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case. The court noted that creating disruption inside the Parliament amounts to a serious threat, possibly even terror.
The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur was hearing the bail applications of accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Seeks Police’s Reply on Bail Plea of Parliament Security Breach Accused
Both were arrested for their alleged involvement in the dramatic and alarming security breach that occurred inside the Parliament on the anniversary of the 2001 terror attack.
During the hearing, Manoranjan’s lawyer argued that their actions — opening smoke canisters and raising slogans — were not intended to be acts of terrorism.
The lawyer said that the smoke released was not harmful and the sole purpose of the protest was to highlight the issue of unemployment in the country.
However, the High Court bench rejected this argument strongly and remarked,
“The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt the Parliament. You disrupted the Parliament.”
This statement made it clear that the Court sees the act as a grave offense, regardless of the alleged intentions behind it.
The Court has now directed the Delhi Police to file a status report in connection with Sagar Sharma’s bail plea. The next date of hearing for both Sharma and Manoranjan’s bail petitions has been fixed for October 8. The court had earlier issued a notice in Manoranjan’s case as well.
The two accused had earlier approached the High Court challenging a trial court’s decision that denied them bail.
This major security lapse took place on December 13, 2023 — a date that also marks the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. According to reports, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour.
Once inside, they opened canisters releasing yellow smoke and began shouting slogans before being overpowered by some Members of Parliament present in the House.
Meanwhile, two other accused — Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad — allegedly carried out a similar protest outside the Parliament building.
They were reportedly shouting “tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won’t work)” while releasing coloured gas from canisters.
Earlier, the High Court had granted bail to co-accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat. Based on this, Sharma argued that he too should be granted bail, citing parity.
However, the bench dismissed this argument, stating that the nature of involvement of those two accused was different.
The court explained that
“there was no parity since those granted bail had protested outside Parliament whereas the present accused were inside it.”
Manoranjan also claimed that the charges against him were vague and that the Delhi Police had wrongly applied sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in his case. He maintained that his role did not fall within the scope of a terrorist act.
In its earlier observations, the trial court had stated that all six accused — Neelam Azad, Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Lalit Jha, and Mahesh Kumawat — were aware of the terror threat issued by designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu.
Pannu had allegedly threatened to target Parliament on December 13, 2023. The court noted that four of the accused were caught on the spot, while Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat were arrested later.
Case Title:
Sagar Sharma & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Click Here to Read More Reports on Parliament security
