Court says mere presence after permitted protest hours, without proof of specific disobedience or common intention, cannot justify prosecution under BNS
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR and all related criminal proceedings against Khurshid Ahmed, an SSC examination aspirant who was detained during a protest at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan in August 2025.
Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order on October 13, 2026, holding that mere presence at a protest venue after permitted hours, without any specific allegation of disobedience, instigation, violence, or shared criminal intent, was not enough to continue criminal proceedings under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The case arose from a protest organised by Staff Selection Commission aspirants on August 24 and 25, 2025, over alleged irregularities in examinations. Police had granted permission for a peaceful demonstration between 10 am and 5 pm. According to the prosecution, around 800 to 1,000 people gathered at the venue. After the permitted time expired, police said repeated announcements were made asking protesters to vacate the ground, and alleged that some organisers encouraged the crowd to stay until their demands were met.
An FIR was then registered at Kamla Market police station against several persons, including Ahmed, alleging disobedience of prohibitory orders and common intention. The police also claimed some protesters pushed and scuffled with personnel on duty.
Ahmed approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR insofar as it related to him. He argued that he was only a participant in the protest, not an organiser or speaker, and that no overt act had been attributed to him. His counsel contended that he had been implicated solely because he remained at the venue after the permitted time.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that loudhailer announcements had informed the gathering of directions to disperse and of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS. It said Ahmed remained at the venue despite these directions and that investigation had progressed, with a chargesheet already filed against 29 persons.
The High Court, however, found that while the announcements could be relevant to show knowledge of directions to disperse, the record did not show how Ahmed’s continued presence by itself satisfied the legal ingredients of Section 223(a) BNS. The Court noted that the offence requires not just knowledge and disobedience of a lawful order, but also that such disobedience must cause, or tend to cause, obstruction, annoyance, injury, or risk to persons lawfully employed.
Justice Narula observed that neither the FIR nor the status report specifically accused Ahmed of refusing to vacate the ground, instigating protesters, or scuffling with police. The allegations of such conduct were directed against organisers or the crowd generally, not against him individually.
On the issue of common intention under Section 3(5) BNS, the Court held that mere participation in the same demonstration does not automatically establish a shared intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel. In the absence of material showing such common intention, joint liability could not be invoked against Ahmed.
The Court also took note of the fact that Ahmed had joined the investigation pursuant to a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS and had cooperated with the investigating officer.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the High Court reiterated that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. It added that allowing the prosecution to continue against Ahmed in the absence of foundational material would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 351/2025 dated August 24, 2025, and all consequential proceedings against Khurshid Ahmed alone. It clarified that its observations were confined to Ahmed’s role and would not affect the investigation or proceedings against any other accused.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of FIR - Mere presence in a protest after permitted hours, without specific material showing knowing disobedience attracting consequences under Section 223(a) BNS or common intention under Section 3(5) BNS, is insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 223(a) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 163 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 35(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
