The recent extension of police custody for four individuals involved in a major security breach at the Indian Parliament has drawn significant attention. The Patiala House Court in New Delhi, presided over by Special Judge Hardeep Kaur, has ordered that the accused—Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, and Neelam Devi—remain in police custody until January 5. This decision follows the expiry of their initial seven-day custody period.
The case pertains to a startling incident that occurred on December 13, the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, marking it as a day of high symbolic importance. In a dramatic turn of events, two of the accused, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D, managed to infiltrate the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour. They executed a conspicuous act by releasing yellow gas from canisters and vociferously shouting slogans. This act of defiance and disruption was quickly contained as they were overpowered by some MPs present in the chamber.
Simultaneously, outside the Parliament House premises, the other two accused, Amol Shinde and Neelam Devi, engaged in a similar act of protest. They sprayed colored gas from canisters while loudly proclaiming slogans such as “tanashahi nahi chalegi,” a statement against dictatorship. This synchronized act of protest both inside and outside the Parliament premises constituted a significant breach of security, raising questions about the effectiveness of the existing security measures at one of India’s most critical and sensitive institutions.
The extension of police custody by 15 days, as requested by the city police and granted by the court, underscores the gravity of the situation. This additional time is crucial for the police to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident. The objectives are manifold: to understand the motives behind the accused’s actions, to determine whether there was a larger conspiracy or network supporting these acts, and to assess any potential threats to national security or parliamentary integrity.
This incident has not only highlighted potential vulnerabilities in the security apparatus of the Indian Parliament but has also sparked a broader discussion on the balance between security and accessibility in democratic institutions. The actions of the accused and the subsequent legal proceedings are being closely watched, as they bear implications for the future of parliamentary security and the response to such breaches.
As the investigation progresses, the focus will be on unraveling the full extent of this security breach, including the planning, execution, and any affiliations or ideologies that may have driven these actions. The outcome of this high-profile case is expected to have a lasting impact on the protocols and policies governing the security of India’s legislative bodies.
Also read-Lok Sabha Passes Key Bill On Election Commission Appointments Amid Debate (lawchakra.in)
