The Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns over the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the 2023 Parliament security breach case. During a hearing on April 18, the Court questioned whether using a smoke canister — a device commonly seen during festivals like Holi and events like IPL matches — could really be considered a terrorist act.
Read also: Delhi High Court Cancels IRCTC Catering Tender Over Non-Disclosure of Criminal Cases by Bidder
The division bench, comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, was hearing the bail plea of Neelam Azad, one of the accused in the case.
“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 UAPA,” the Court told the Delhi Police.
“If that is so, then in every Holi, everybody will come under this offence. Every IPL match will attract UAPA.”
The Court has directed the police to clarify their stand and scheduled the next hearing on April 29. It will also hear the bail plea of co-accused Manoranjan D on the same day.
Opposing Azad's bail, the Delhi Police claimed the accused aimed to remind the public of the 2001 Parliament attack by targeting the newly constructed Parliament building. According to them, the act was designed to bring back “haunted memories” of that traumatic event.
The incident occurred on the anniversary of the 2001 terror attack. During the Zero Hour in Lok Sabha, two individuals — identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D — jumped into the chamber from the public gallery. They were seen releasing yellow gas from smoke canisters and shouting slogans. Some Members of Parliament (MPs) managed to overpower and restrain them.
Outside the Parliament premises, two others — Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad — reportedly used similar canisters to spray colored smoke while chanting slogans like “tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship will not be tolerated).
The case has sparked debate over the limits of anti-terror laws and their applicability to non-lethal acts of protest. The Court’s remarks suggest a careful review is needed before labeling such incidents as terrorism under UAPA.
Case Title: MANORANJAN D v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
