Alka Lamba to Face Trial Over Jantar Mantar Protest as Delhi Court Finds Prima Facie Case

A special court at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue has refused to interfere with the framing of criminal charges against former Congress MLA and women’s rights activist Alka Lamba in connection with a protest held at Jantar Mantar in July 2024, holding that the prosecution material disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed to trial and that the issues raised by the accused were matters to be tested during evidence.

The court underscored that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not required to assess whether the allegations will ultimately result in conviction, but only whether a prima facie case exists warranting a full-fledged trial.

The order was passed by Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, who dismissed Lamba's criminal revision petition challenging the trial court’s decision to frame charges under Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant), 221 (obstructing a public servant), 223(a) (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), and 285 (causing obstruction or danger on a public way) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The court upheld the earlier order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directing that charges be framed in relation to the protest that took place on 29.07.2024.

The case stems from a protest organised at Jantar Mantar in support of women’s reservation, where Alka Lamba was alleged to be the main speaker.

According to the prosecution, while Jantar Mantar Road was an exempted area under a prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the protest escalated when demonstrators, allegedly at Lamba’s instigation, attempted to march beyond the permitted zone towards Parliament.

The police claimed that despite repeated announcements through loud hailers warning protesters of the prohibitory order, the demonstrators jumped barricades, pushed police personnel, and blocked a public road near Sansad Marg by lying on it, thereby obstructing public movement and creating a law-and-order situation during an ongoing Parliament session.

Lamba had challenged the framing of charges on multiple grounds, including that the protest was peaceful and confined to an exempted area, that there was an evidentiary vacuum since no medico-legal certificates or injury reports were on record, and that the prosecution was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 215 of the BNSS, which mandates a written complaint by a public servant before cognizance can be taken for certain offences.

She also alleged selective prosecution, pointing out that no other protester had been charge-sheeted.

Rejecting these contentions, the court first reiterated the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438 and 440 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 397 and 399 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure.

It held that interference at the stage of framing of charges is permissible only where there is patent illegality, perversity, or a complete absence of material, none of which was found in the present case.

On the issue of the alleged bar under Section 215 BNSS, the court clarified that while such a complaint may not have accompanied the initial police report, the law only requires that a valid written complaint by the concerned public servant must exist before cognizance is taken.

Since the trial court had taken cognizance after receiving the requisite complaint, the court held that the statutory requirement stood satisfied and the proceedings could not be invalidated on this ground.

The court also rejected the argument that the protest was immune from legal scrutiny merely because Jantar Mantar is an exempted protest site. It observed that the exemption applied only within the demarcated protest area and could not extend to acts allegedly committed beyond that zone.

Relying on video recordings and statements of police witnesses, the court noted that there was prima facie material to show that the protesters, led by the revisionist, breached multiple barricades and moved towards prohibited areas, resulting in obstruction of public roads.

Addressing the absence of injury reports, the court held that offences relating to disobedience of a lawful order, obstruction of public servants, and use of criminal force do not necessarily require proof of physical injury.

It emphasised that even intentional pushing or causing obstruction to deter public servants from performing their duties could attract the relevant penal provisions, and that the absence of medical evidence was not sufficient to discharge the accused at the threshold.

The court further held that discrepancies, if any, between video evidence and eyewitness accounts could not be conclusively assessed at the stage of framing of charge and were matters for trial. It also rejected the plea of selective prosecution, observing that the existence of specific material against the revisionist was sufficient to justify continuation of proceedings, irrespective of whether other protesters had been charge-sheeted.

Concluding that the trial court had correctly applied the settled legal principles governing framing of charges and that there was no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the court dismissed the revision petition and allowed the prosecution to proceed to trial.

Earlier, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar, Rouse Avenue Court had held that Alka Lamba would be tried under Sections 132, 221, 223(a) and 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and dismissed her application seeking discharge under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Case Title: Alka Lamba v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Dig Vinay Singh, Special Judge (PC Act), MPs/MLAs Cases, Rouse Avenue Court

Date of Judgment: 6.02.2026