Mere participation in protest not enough to show intention to disobey, obstruct police: HC

The Delhi High Court has said that mere participation in a demonstration does not by itself establish a “common intention” to disobey police directions or obstruct police personnel.

Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while quashing an FIR against an SSC aspirant who was booked by Delhi Police in 2025 for allegedly failing to disperse from Ramlila Maidan despite repeated announcements to vacate the protest venue.

The petitioner had participated in the protest at Ramlila Maidan in August last year over alleged irregularities in the conduct of the SSC entrance examination.

The prosecution claimed that certain organisers refused to conclude the demonstration after the expiry of the permitted time and instigated the gathering to remain at the venue until their demands were fulfilled.

Also Read: Where do we belong?’: Delhi tenants worry over SIR deletions

The police registered the FIR alleging that certain protestors disobeyed the prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as they continued to occupy the ground and some of them pushed and scuffled with police personnel.

Giving relief to the petitioner, the court stated that neither the FIR nor the subsequent status report attributed any criminal conduct specifically to him, and his mere presence among the protesters, in the absence of a common intention to commit a crime with others, was not sufficient to establish the offence under section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The provision penalises disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, where the person concerned has knowledge of such order and the disobedience causes, or tends to cause, obstruction, annoyance etc to persons lawfully employed.

Also Read: 24 hours, no more: the rules on police detention

“The petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters, in the absence of material indicating his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or any common intention to commit the offence. The continuation of the proceedings against him, in these circumstances, would serve no worthwhile purpose,” said the court in the order passed on October 13.

“Mere participation in the same demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel. The material on record does not disclose any basis for attributing such common intention to the petitioner,” it held.