Delhi High Court has said in its decision that violent actions like ‘hit and run’ cannot be considered a valid method of protest under any principle of democracy. The court made it clear that protests are an important part of democracy, but no one can be allowed to spread violence and anarchy. The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia, in its order given on May 16, also expressed concern over the activities allegedly being carried out to spread unrest in the guise of protest by a section of the society. The court said that in a democratic system, people have the right to express their views and register protest, but this right should be exercised only within the limits of law and public order. The court said that any kind of violence, damage to public property or creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity among people cannot be acceptable.

The Delhi High Court has made a strong comment on violent activities in the name of protests, saying that actions like ‘hit and run’ cannot be accepted under any principle of democracy. The court said that protests are an important part of democracy, but violence cannot be considered a legitimate protest under any circumstances. In its order dated May 16, the bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia said, “We reiterate that protests are an important part of democracy. But, violence carried out in the name of protest cannot be accepted under any principle of democracy. Acts like ‘hit and run’ do not amount to protests.” The court further said that it is a matter of grave concern that a section of the society is thriving with the help of activities that create unrest under the guise of protest.

Challenge the lower court order

The judge made this comment when the court was hearing a petition filed by nine people. The petition challenged the trial court’s order in which his appeal to discharge him from cases registered under sections 307 (attempt to murder) and section 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance) of the Indian Penal Code was rejected. The High Court made it clear in its order that it is necessary to maintain a clear distinction between peaceful protests and violent activities. The court said that damaging public property, creating an atmosphere of fear among people or disturbing law and order cannot be acceptable in any form.

A case to an incident of 2022

This matter is to an incident of June 21, 2022. It is alleged that a group of nine people gathered outside the official bungalow of BJP President JP Nadda located on Moti Lal Nehru Marg and raised slogans there. After this, the protesters burnt the effigy of JP Nadda on the main road and then threw the burning effigy towards the door and roof of the bungalow before running away from there.

Several sections against the accused

In this case, the accused under Indian Penal Code sections 188 (disobedience to order of public servant), 146 and 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 278 (creating an environment injurious to health), 285 (negligent conduct in relation to fire or inflammable substance), 307 (attempt to murder), 436 (use of fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy property) have been booked. Experiment) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).

However, the accused later filed an application to discharge themselves under sections 307 and 436, but in November 2025, the trial court rejected their application. After this he approached the High Court. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that no one was injured in the incident nor was there any intention to kill anyone, hence the charge of attempt to murder does not fall on them. He said that his aim was only to protest and not to harm anyone.

The accused further argued that at the most their act could fall under Section 285 of the IPC, which deals with negligent conduct involving fire. He also claimed that since no explosive substance was used, the offense under Section 436 of the IPC does not apply.

Delhi Police opposed the petition

However, Delhi Police opposed this plea and citing eyewitness statements, said that the intention of the accused was to kill the security guards. The High Court, while upholding the trial court’s order, said that if the incident was a mere protest, then it is incomprehensible why the accused carried the burning effigy, crossing the wide footpath and service road, reached the bungalow and threw it on the door and roof of the security room. The court further said that the petitioners did not even claim that the burning effigy had accidentally fallen at that spot. The court said that this indicates that this was not a sudden incident that occurred during any protest, but was a deliberate act.

The High Court, while upholding the trial court’s order, said, “If it was an ordinary protest outside the house of that well-known person, then why would the petitioners, after burning the effigy, cross a wide footpath and then a wide service road to the other side. Then why would they throw the burning effigy over the bungalow gate and the roof of the security room.” The court said that neither party had said that the burning effigy had accidentally fallen on top of the bungalow gate or the security room. The court clarified, “What the petitioners did was not a negligent act. It was clearly a deliberate act.”

Follow the LALLURAM.COM MP channel on WhatsApp