Delhi Court Upholds Charges Against Activist for Leading Unlawful Protest Actions Under New Criminal Laws

Introduction

In a significant ruling for cases involving protests and public order, the Rouse Avenue District Court in New Delhi has dismissed a revision petition filed by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Alka Lamba, upholding the framing of charges against her under Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), 221 (obstruction of public servant), 223(a) (disobedience of public order), and 285 (causing obstruction in public way) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The decision, delivered by Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh on February 6, 2026, stems from an incident during a women's rights demonstration at Jantar Mantar on July 29, 2024. The court found prima facie evidence, based on eyewitness accounts and video footage, that Lamba instigated protesters to breach police barricades and obstruct public access, despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This case highlights tensions between the right to protest and maintaining public order under India's revamped criminal justice framework, with implications for how charges are framed in politically charged demonstrations.

The bench, comprising Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh handling cases involving MPs and MLAs under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and CBI matters, emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the sufficiency of evidence at the charge-framing stage. The State (NCT of Delhi), represented through the Parliament Street Police Station, argued that Lamba's actions as the main speaker escalated a permitted gathering into an unlawful assembly, justifying the charges. This ruling comes amid ongoing debates on protest regulations in Delhi, particularly around sensitive sites like Parliament.

Case Background

The dispute originates from a protest organized by the All India Mahila Congress on July 29, 2024, at Jantar Mantar, a designated site for demonstrations in New Delhi. The event aimed to support the implementation of women's reservation in Parliament, a pressing political issue following the passage of the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam in 2023. Alka Lamba, a prominent activist and former legislator, served as the main speaker, addressing a crowd of women protesters led by Neetu Verma Soni, National Women President of the Congress.

Prior to the event, organizers, including Soni, sought and received permission for a peaceful assembly at Jantar Mantar via letters dated July 11 and 23, 2024. However, their request to march toward Parliament for a "gherao" (siege) was explicitly denied on July 24, 2024, by senior police officials. Compounding this, an order under Section 163 BNSS—prohibiting unlawful assemblies—was already in force since May 14, 2024, in the Parliament Street sub-division, exempting only the Jantar Mantar area itself. The order aimed to prevent disruptions during the ongoing Parliament session and ensure security for lawmakers.

At around 1:30 PM on the day of the protest, tensions escalated as Lamba and the protesters approached police barricades on Tolstoy Road, raising slogans and expressing intent to surround Parliament. Despite warnings via loudspeakers from senior officers about the prohibitory order and requests to disperse, the group allegedly pushed through barricades, obstructed police personnel, and blocked Sansad Marg (opposite Free Church) by sitting or lying on the road. This action, police claimed, hindered public movement and posed risks during a high-security period.

An FIR was promptly registered at Parliament Street Police Station based on a complaint from Head Constable Manish (Belt No. 1880/ND), who was on duty at the site. Investigation involved collecting video evidence from the Jantar Mantar Photo Cell Section, preparing a site plan, and securing statements from police witnesses. On March 5, 2025, Lamba was served notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, undertaking to appear in court as summoned. The charge sheet, filed subsequently, invoked the aforementioned BNS sections for offenses committed during the breach.

Lamba challenged the charges in a discharge application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM)-04, Rouse Avenue District Court (RADC), which was dismissed on December 19, 2025, leading to the framing of charges. She then filed a revision petition under Section 438 BNSS (corresponding to old Section 397 CrPC) on January 20, 2026, arguing procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and the peaceful nature of the protest. Arguments were heard on January 29, 2026, culminating in the February 6, 2026, order upholding the trial court's decision. The case timeline underscores the swift progression under the new BNSS/BNS regime, from incident to revision in under 19 months.

The core legal questions revolved around:

(1) Whether prima facie evidence supported charges for using criminal force, obstructing public servants, disobeying public orders, and blocking public ways;

(2) The validity of proceeding without a contemporaneous complaint under Section 215 BNSS;

(3) The impact of the protest site's exempted status and video evidence; and

(4) The scope of revisional interference at the pre-trial stage.

Arguments Presented

Lamba's defense, advanced through her counsel, rested on four main pillars: jurisdictional defects, the lawful nature of the protest, evidentiary shortcomings, and allegations of selective prosecution.

First, they contended a "jurisdictional bar" under Section 215 BNSS, which mandates a written complaint from a public servant for offenses under Sections 206-223 BNS (excluding 209) before cognizance. Arguing that no such complaint existed when the initial charge sheet was filed, they claimed the post-facto complaint on April 14, 2025, from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Parliament Street, was impermissible, rendering proceedings a nullity from inception. They cited precedents like Jeevanandham & Ors. v. State & Ors. (MANU/TM/5423/2018), C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. ((2010) 9 SCC 567), and Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021 CRLJ 613) to support that procedural compliance is mandatory and incurable post-charge sheet.

Second, Lamba's team asserted the protest was peaceful and confined to Jantar Mantar, an "exempted area" from Section 163 BNSS orders per police communications. They argued no independent witnesses corroborated police claims, video evidence (serial nos. 437 and 442) showed only stationary protesters in a non-public zone without blocking roads, and the site plan lacked barricade markings, making disobedience under Section 223(a) BNS impossible.

Third, highlighting an "evidentiary vacuum," they noted the absence of medico-legal certificates (MLC) or injury reports for alleged assaults. For Section 132 BNS (assault or criminal force), they claimed "passive resistance" like standing or walking does not constitute "force" under Sections 128-129 BNS, relying on Mahendra Kumar Sonkar v. State of M.P. (2024 INSC 600), where incidental contact during escape was not deemed criminal force. For Section 285 BNS, they argued no property was in Lamba's possession to cause obstruction.

Finally, they alleged "selective and malicious prosecution," noting only Lamba was charge-sheeted among many protesters, and her "vanishing" from videos post-breach suggested an alibi, with charges motivated by her political profile.

The prosecution, represented by the State (NCT of Delhi), countered that Lamba, as the main instigator, led an unlawful escalation beyond the exempted zone. They detailed how, despite prior denial of march permission and awareness of Section 163 BNSS (notified to organizers on July 22, 2024, via Additional DCP), Lamba instigated barricade breaches, pushed officers, and blocked Sansad Marg. Eyewitness statements from HC Manish and ASI Ashok described Lamba jumping barricades, gesturing to others, and pushing police chains. Videos, played in court, corroborated this: Lamba climbing and jumping the first barricade (Video 436-437), pushing female officers, and slipping toward Tolstoy Road after the second (Video 441-442).

On the jurisdictional point, they argued Section 215 BNSS only requires the complaint before cognizance, which occurred on August 20, 2025, after the ACP's filing—thus no bar. They dismissed evidentiary claims, stating criminal force under Section 132 BNS needs no injury, only intentional motion causing annoyance or fear, and obstruction under Section 285 BNS applies disjunctively to any act, not just property omission. Selective prosecution was irrelevant, as Lamba's leadership role justified focus. A July 21, 2024, press note from All India Mahila Congress announcing the gherao intent further evidenced premeditation, breaching undertakings for orderly conduct without traffic impediments or disobedience to police directions.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning centered on the restrained scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438/440 BNSS (akin to Sections 397/399 CrPC), exercisable only for patent errors, lack of evidence, or arbitrary discretion—not to re-appreciate facts at the charge-framing stage. Judge Singh meticulously sifted trial records, affirming "sufficient grounds for proceeding" based on prima facie evidence, without requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Key to the analysis was interpreting BNS provisions in the protest context. For Section 223(a) BNS (disobedience causing obstruction/annoyance), the court clarified that even acts "tending to cause" risk suffice—no actual injury needed. It rejected the exempted zone defense, noting Lamba's actions breached boundaries: videos showed her leading beyond the first barricade, instigating pushes against the second, and escaping via Tolstoy Road, violating the July 14, 2024, Section 163 BNSS order prohibiting assemblies outside Jantar Mantar during Parliament sessions. This distinguished the case from mere stationary protests, emphasizing breached undertakings (e.g., compliance with police directions, no roadblocks).

Under Section 221 BNS (obstructing public servants), eyewitness accounts of pushes constituted voluntary obstruction, not incidental friction. The court applied Section 132 BNS definitions: "force" (Section 128) as causing motion/cessation via bodily power, escalating to "criminal force" (Section 129) if intentional and causing fear/annoyance without consent, aimed at deterring duty. Videos (e.g., 437) depicted Lamba shoving officers while jumping, corroborated by HC Manish and ASI Ashok—sufficient for assault, even sans MLC, as injury is not requisite.

For Section 285 BNS (public way obstruction), the disjunctive structure ("by doing any act, or by omitting...") applied; Lamba's instigation led to road-lying, causing public inconvenience, immaterial to property possession. Precedents like Mahendra Kumar Sonkar were distinguished: unlike escape contact there, here pushes deterred police actively. Dr. Thomas v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C No. 7690/2017, Kerala HC, 2024) was inapplicable, involving different factual obstructions.

On procedure, Section 215 BNSS compliance was upheld: the bar lifts post-complaint before cognizance, allowing charge sheets sans initial filing. Cited cases ( Jeevanandham , Muniappan , Ravishankar ) were factually distinct, involving uncured lapses post-cognizance. Independent witnesses' absence was irrelevant—police testimony is competent. The site plan's barricade omission and selective charge-sheeting were trial issues, not discharge grounds. Lamba's "vanishing" alibi pertained to post-action, not negating prior instigation.

This analysis reinforces that under BNS/BNSS, protest leaders face liability for escalations beyond permissions, balancing free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with public order (Article 19(2)). It distinguishes quashing (full dismissal) from discharge (pre-trial release), applying the former only for inherent improbability, not probable defenses.

Key Observations

The judgment extracts pivotal reasoning through direct quotes, underscoring evidentiary sufficiency and legal thresholds:

• On revisional scope: "The scope of interference and exercise of Revisional jurisdiction is very restricted; it should be exercised sparingly, especially when the decision under challenge is clearly erroneous, there is non-compliance with legal provisions, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is based on no evidence, or material evidence has been ignored, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely in framing the charge."

• On Section 215 BNSS compliance: "Once such a complaint is filed by the public servant, even if it is not initially filed, there is no legal hurdle to taking cognizance of the offence after such a complaint is filed. The law does not prohibit filing a charge sheet in the absence of a complaint U/s 215 BNSS. The law only requires that such a complaint must exist before cognizance is taken."

• On criminal force without injury: "While the absence of MLC or any injury report is noted, the use of criminal force U/s 129 BNS does not strictly require physical injury. Rather, the intentional causing of motion or change of motion to deter a public servant would be enough to attract Sec. 132 of BNS."

• On video and eyewitness synergy: "Besides the videos, there are statements of eyewitnesses, and even if there is some variance between the versions of the eyewitnesses and the videos in question, it would be a question of trial and cannot be prejudged at this stage."

• On broader implications: "The standard for framing charges is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but 'sufficient ground for proceeding'. The arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of injuries, and the nature of dissent are defences to be established during the trial and cannot be prejudged."

These observations highlight the court's evidence-based approach, integrating other sources like police reports and prior communications to affirm the trial court's findings.

Court's Decision

The Rouse Avenue Court unequivocally dismissed the revision petition, upholding the December 19, 2025, order framing charges under Sections 132, 221, 223(a), and 285 BNS. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh ruled: "In the considered opinion of this Court, the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its judicial mind to sift through the statements of eyewitnesses and the electronic evidence and has concluded that a prima facie case exists... As there is no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the present Revision Petition fails and is dismissed."

Practically, this directs the case to trial before ACJM-04, RADC, where Lamba must defend against the charges, potentially facing up to six months' imprisonment or fines under each section. Bail remains an option, given the bailable nature of most offenses, but conviction could bar her from certain political roles under Representation of the People Act provisions.

The implications are profound for legal practice. It signals stricter scrutiny of protest leadership under BNS, where instigation via gestures or slogans can attract criminal force charges without physical harm proof, relying on videos and police witnesses. This may deter escalatory tactics in demonstrations, particularly near Parliament, reinforcing Section 163 BNSS as a tool for preemptive order maintenance. For future cases, it establishes that post-facto Section 215 BNSS complaints validate cognizance if timely, easing prosecutorial burdens in public servant offenses.

Broader effects include chilling organized dissent, prompting activists to adhere rigidly to permissions and undertakings. It could influence similar probes into 2024 protests (e.g., farmers' or CAA-related), emphasizing digital evidence's role. For the justice system, it validates the new codes' efficiency in charge-framing, reducing delays, but raises concerns over police overreach in politically sensitive matters—potentially inviting higher court reviews on free speech boundaries.

In essence, this decision underscores that while protests are constitutionally protected, crossing into obstruction or force invites accountability, shaping how India's evolving criminal laws navigate democratic expression.