The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, two of the accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case, stating that their actions did not amount to a terrorist act but were rather symbolic and represented political dissent.
The bail was granted by a division bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. The court ordered that both Azad and Kumawat be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each along with two sureties. As part of the bail conditions, the court restrained the accused from speaking to the media or posting on social media about the incident.
In its order, the bench observed that Kumawat was not present in Delhi at the time of the incident, while Azad, though involved, had not entered the Parliament premises. The judges acknowledged that although the accused chose Parliament as the site for their protest, there was no indication of them promoting any activity that threatened the interests of the nation. The court noted that their actions were more about spreading ideological messages and, prima facie, did not constitute a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The judges emphasised that while protesting inside or near Parliament is neither legal nor appropriate, the act appeared to be symbolic rather than one intended to provoke terror or pose a substantial threat. The court concluded that the case, at its current stage, seems to be one of political dissent. It remarked that although the location and manner of protest were condemnable, the charges under UAPA do not appear to be applicable when considering bail.
Also Read: Digital dilemma: Delhi Police faces challenge in Parliament Security probe, seeks extension
The court also addressed the use of smoke canisters by the accused, noting that such devices are commercially available and commonly used at sports events, weddings, and public celebrations. The yellow smoke emitted by these canisters, the bench noted, does not in itself establish a prima facie case under UAPA. Whether the canisters had explosive properties or the potential to cause harm would be determined during the trial. It also said that the effect of the smoke in open air and whether it could cause hazardous health effects are matters to be examined during trial.
The judges further noted that both Azad and Kumawat did not intend to incite violence, nor did they act in a way that threatened India’s unity, sovereignty, or national security. The pamphlets seized from Azad did not contain any content that promoted or encouraged terrorism. The court said that there was no material at this point to suggest that either accused intended to strike fear in the public or in any community within India or abroad.
Also Read: Six face charges in Parliament security breach
Referring to statements from the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the court noted that there were no injuries reported during the incident and that there was no damage to property or loss of life. As such, the requirements of Section 15 (terrorist act) and Section 18 (conspiracy or abetment) of the UAPA were not met. It further pointed out that Azad refused to enter Parliament and protested outside, which sets her apart from those who had breached the chamber itself. Kumawat, who had not attended the last two planning meetings and was not even in the city, was also found to have no direct role.
The court added that while the timing of the protest—on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack—may have been intentionally chosen to attract attention, this alone did not justify continued detention. It said the act appeared to be aimed more at sensationalism than terror and this would not, at this stage, prevent the court from granting bail.
The bail order came in response to appeals filed by the accused challenging the trial court's earlier decision denying their release. The case dates back to December 13, 2023, when Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, releasing yellow smoke and shouting slogans. Around the same time, Azad and Amol Shinde allegedly set off similar smoke canisters outside Parliament while chanting slogans like “tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship won’t work). The incident had led to serious questions over security and was widely condemned. The High Court’s decision marks a turning point in the ongoing legal proceedings.
Also Read: Court rejects bail plea of accused in Parliament breach
Follow us
