“Protest May Be Reprehensible, But Not A Terrorist Act”: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused For Smoke Canister Protest Outside Parliament
The Court said the protest was an ideological demonstration without evidence of violence, threat, or national harm, and thus did not meet the threshold of a ‘terrorist act’ under Sections 15 and 18 of the UAPA.
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of releasing coloured smoke and raising slogans outside Parliament during a coordinated protest on 13 December 2023. The incident coincided with a similar act by others inside the Lok Sabha chamber. The Court held that, even though the mode and venue of protest were highly condemnable, the act did not prima facie amount to a “terrorist act” within the meaning of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The activities of the Appellants are of the nature of propagation of ideological messages and in the opinion of this Court prima facie do not constitute a terrorist act and does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 or 18 of UAPA Act.”
The Court added, “This case at this juncture appears to be a case of protest and political dissent. Even though the choice and the place of the protest is highly deprecable, it cannot be said that ingredients of UAPA are attracted while considering the issue of grant of bail.”
Advocate Balraj Singh appeared for the Appellant, while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The case arises from an act of protest on December 13, 2023, when two individuals released coloured smoke inside the Lok Sabha gallery while shouting slogans. Simultaneously, others staged a similar protest outside Parliament, releasing coloured smoke and raising slogans. The Appellant in the present case was part of the external protest group.
An FIR was registered under several provisions of the IPC and Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the UAPA, based on the allegation that the acts were part of a larger premeditated conspiracy intended to “strike terror” and undermine national security. It was alleged that the participants were recruited through social media, held multiple planning meetings across different states, and even conducted a “trial run” of the smoke devices in Rajasthan.
The Appellant was accused of releasing smoke and raising slogans outside Parliament but was not alleged to have entered the Lok Sabha premises. The Trial Court had rejected her bail, treating the act as one of national disruption that merited the invocation of anti-terror laws.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court first dealt with the issue of whether the case made out against the Appellant satisfied the bar to bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The Court noted that the statute requires a prima facie belief that the accused committed a “terrorist act” as defined under Sections 15 and 18.
The Court explained, “There is complete lack of material at this juncture of loss of life, bodily injury or significant property damage… The protest is more symbolic rather than giving apprehension of substantial threat or having been done with terrorist intent.”
The Court considered the specific role of the Appellant and noted, “The material on record at this juncture shows that she was not inclined to enter into the Parliament and chose to protest outside. The Petitioner has been in custody since 13.12.2023. It cannot be said that the allegations against the Appellant are grave and serious enough to deny bail under Section 43D(5).”
Regarding the smoke devices used, the Court cited the FSL report to show that they did not contain explosives or toxic chemicals. “The smoke canisters have been purchased from the market and are freely available. These canisters are used in IPL games, cricket matches, and in various events and festivals like weddings, parties, Holi etc. The nature of the devices cannot be termed to be of a kind used for causing terror”, it added.
The Court further observed the absence of any ideological aggression against the State, stating, “The investigation has not revealed any association of the accused with any banned outfit. At the same time, the Appellant has not propagated any movement which can be said to be against the interest of the nation.”
The Bench drew a distinction between civil protest and terrorism, observing, “A line has to be drawn between protest, even if unconventional or theatrical in nature, and acts of terror which are carried out to threaten or destabilise the State. The former, though subject to legal process, cannot be reflexively classified as the latter.”
The Court rejected the argument that merely targeting Parliament premises was sufficient to invoke UAPA, holding, “It is not the place alone that makes an act terroristic, but the intent, magnitude, and consequence of the act. On none of those parameters does the present act appear to qualify.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the Appellant, subject to conditions. It clarified that the observations were limited to the purpose of bail and would not affect the trial.
Cause Title: Neelam Ranolia Alias Neelam Prajapat Alias Neelam Azad v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5190-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Balraj Singh Malik, Amrit Singh, Gaurav Bishnoi
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma; Additional Public Prosecutor Laksh Khanna; Advocates Akhand Pratap Singh, Smriti Maheshwari, Diksha Suri, Samridhi Dobhal, Krishna, Hritwik Maurya, Amit Gupta, Saurabh Tripathi, Shubham Sharma, Urja Pandey
