Parl breach case: Court to hear Neelam Azad’s bail plea on April 29

The Delhi High Court will hear the bail plea of Neelam Azad, the only woman arrested in the 2023 Parliament security breach case, on April 29. Her petition will be heard alongside that of co-accused Manoranjan D.

A Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held a brief hearing on Thursday, during which it directed the Delhi Police to clarify whether using a smoke canister, which is non-lethal and widely available, qualifies as a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Bench questioned the applicability of such stringent charges. “If this canister with smoke, freely available in the market, attracts the UAPA, then everyone playing Holi or attending IPL matches would be committing terrorist acts,” the court remarked, asking the police to respond on the next date of hearing.

Azad’s lawyer argued that the UAPA provisions do not apply in this case and requested her release on bail.

The case stems from a major security breach in Parliament on the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attack. On that day in year 2023, during zero hour, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery.

They reportedly released yellow smoke from canisters and shouted slogans before being restrained by the Members of Parliament.

At the same time, two others – Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad – were accused of spraying coloured smoke outside the Parliament premises while shouting slogans such as “tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship will not be tolerated).

Opposing the bail, the prosecution described Azad’s actions as a “grave offence” and claimed her conduct amounted to a threat against the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Under Section 15 of the UAPA, a “terrorist act” is defined as any action intended to threaten the unity, security or sovereignty of the country, or to cause fear in the public using explosives, firearms or other harmful substances that result in death, injury or disruption to essential services.

The High Court’s decision on whether such conduct falls within the bounds of this legal definition is now expected on April 29.

Delhi