ASG Calls Parliament Smoke Attack an ‘Assault on 140 Crore Citizens’; Delhi HC Reserves Order on Bail Pleas
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on the bail applications filed by Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach involving the release of smoke canisters during a live parliamentary session.
Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma strongly opposed the bail pleas. He argued that the incident amounted to more than a mere disruption — it was an “assault on 140 crore citizens” of India.
“It is not an assault or attack on individuals A, B, and C. It is an assault on individuals A, B, and C who represent the electorate of this country. 140 crores of people are crystallized and subsumed in a particular place, which is the temple of democracy. If UAPA is not applicable here, then in which case should it be applicable?” Sharma told the court.
Referring to the symbolic weight of the attack on Parliament, it was submitted that the act posed a serious threat to national security and justified prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Incident
The case stems from events that unfolded on December 13, 2023, the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack. Following tributes to the martyrs, regular proceedings commenced in the Lok Sabha and were being broadcast live across the country.
Around 1 PM, while a Member of Parliament from West Bengal was speaking, two individuals jumped from the visitors’ gallery into the main chamber of the Lok Sabha, an area strictly off-limits to the public.
One of them, later identified as Sagare Sharma, leaped across empty seats and released a yellow smoke canister concealed in his shoe. His accomplice, Manoranjan D, followed suit with a second canister. Both men were subdued by MPs and security staff after some resistance.
Statements from several parliamentarians described the moment as chaotic and frightening. The thick smoke reportedly caused difficulty in breathing, burning eyes, and widespread panic, forcing the session to end abruptly.
The Investigation and UAPA Charges
The court was apprised that the prosecution's case consists of two parts. The first relates to the direct involvement of the two individuals inside the Parliament. The second concerns the broader conspiracy, allegedly involving Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat.
A key witness, Vikas Sharma, claimed he facilitated introductions between Sagare Sharma, Manoranjan D, and others linked to protests in Delhi. He recounted meetings and overnight stays involving these individuals at various locations, including his residence. According to his statement, Neelam and co-accused Amol Shinde were introduced to him two days before the attack. Sharma said he distanced himself after learning that the protest would involve setting off smoke and fire near Parliament to attract media attention.
In court, ASG Sharma emphasized that the deliberate selection of Parliament as the protest site on a day of national remembrance underscored the accused’s intent to provoke fear and draw widespread attention.
“If UAPA is not applicable here, then in which case should it be applicable?” he reiterated, arguing that the act’s symbolic and psychological impact qualified as terrorism.
The State also cited Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which bars bail if a prima facie case exists under Sections 15 (terrorist act) or 18 (criminal conspiracy). The defense contended that the accused had not entered the Parliament premises and therefore should not be charged under UAPA.
Observations by the Court
The bench, however, appeared unconvinced by the argument that the accused’s physical absence from the scene exempted them from the statute.
“Why did you choose that date? Why did you choose that place when you know it is the parliament, when there are designated places for protest? And then you decide to hold protest inside and around the parliament?” asked Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar during the hearing.
The court noted that Parliament was in session and observing the solemn memory of the 2001 attack, lending deeper resonance to the timing and location of the protest.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, while reserving the order, remarked:
“If you had gone to Jantar Mantar with smoke canisters, no problem. If you had even gone to the boat club, though it is prohibited, even then we would have seen. But when you choose parliament, and what makes it worse is that the parliament is in session on a day when parliamentarians pay homage to martyrs of the 2001 parliament attack... then whether it can come under a prima facie case under Section 15 is what we will have to consider. We will have to think very hard.”
The prosecution also informed the court that cognizance of the offences was taken on August 3, 2024, and the chargesheet has since been filed. However, arguments on the framing of charges are yet to begin and are scheduled for June 3, 2025.
Allegations of Custodial Misconduct
The defence also raised allegations of custodial torture - In January 2024, the accused filed an application before the Patiala House Court alleging they were coerced into revealing passwords for their social media and email accounts, and subjected to physical and psychological mistreatment during custody.
For the Appellants: Advocates Balraj Singh Malik and Gaurav Bishnoi
For the State: ASG Chetan Sharma, APP Ritesh Kumar Bahri with Advocates Divya Yadav and Lalit Luthra
Case Title: Neelam Ranolia v. State (CRL.A. 263/2025)