The Chandigarh Administration moved the Supreme Court of India challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order quashing criminal proceedings against CM Bhagwant Mann and other AAP leaders in a rioting and unlawful assembly case.
The Chandigarh Administration has approached the Supreme Court to challenge an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that quashed criminal proceedings against Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and several other leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in a case involving allegations of rioting and unlawful assembly.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipin Pancholi agreed to list the plea for hearing after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Union Territory administration, informed the Court that additional respondents would need to be impleaded. This is because similar relief had already been granted to others connected to the same case.
Taking note of the request, the Court indicated that the matter would be listed once an application seeking permission to add the additional respondents is submitted formally.
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered by the Chandigarh Police in 2020. It alleged that Mann and other AAP leaders had organised a protest march against the increase in electricity tariff. According to the FIR, the protesters allegedly planned to surround the residence of the then Punjab Chief Minister, but the police dispersed them using water cannons. The allegations further stated that stone pelting on police personnel was reported thereafter.
On November 29, 2025, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed petitions seeking the quashing of the FIR filed by Mann and other party leaders.
In its order, the High Court held that there was no justification for preventing the protest march since no prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been imposed at the relevant time.
The Court also observed that none of the individuals allegedly involved in stone pelting had been specifically identified. It further noted that there were no allegations indicating that the petitioners had instigated such acts.
The High Court stated that,
“no specific words, gestures, or overt acts had been attributed to the accused leaders.”
Concluding that there was no foundation to link the petitioners with the alleged violence, the High Court held that offences relating to rioting, assault on police personnel, and unlawful assembly were not made out based on the facts of the case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE