Back
When Protest Turns Into 'Shoot and Scoot': Cracks Down on Disruptive Violence
The has made it clear that not every act wrapped in the language of protest qualifies as protected expression. In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Girish Kathpalia refused to discharge several accused persons who allegedly carried a burning effigy across multiple roads and threw it onto the security room of a prominent political leader’s official bungalow.
The Incident That Left Little Room for Doubt
On , the petitioners allegedly gathered outside the gate at Motilal Nehru Marg, raised slogans, and burned an effigy of the political figure on the main road. According to the FIR, supported by eyewitness statements and CCTV footage, they then carried the burning effigy on wooden poles, crossed a wide footpath and service road, and hurled the flaming remains onto the gate and rooftop of the guardroom. Security personnel inside reportedly tried to intervene before the group fled.
The entire sequence was captured on CCTV installed at the bungalow. This footage became central to both the prosecution’s case and the petitioners’ unsuccessful attempt to convince the court that their actions amounted to nothing more than peaceful protest.
Petitioners Argue Lack of Intent and Harm
Before the and later in revision, counsel for the petitioners argued that ( ) could not be invoked because no one was injured and no deadly weapon was used. They maintained that the act was a symbolic protest and that any criminality, if at all, would fall under the more lenient provision of dealing with negligent conduct regarding fire. They also contended that absence of explosives ruled out .
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, countered that the deliberate act of carrying fire across roads and throwing it directly at a location where security men were known to stand demonstrated clear knowledge that death or serious injury was likely. The CCTV footage, played before the , showed the accused moving far beyond any conventional protest site to target the security structure.
Court Finds Clear and Imminent Danger
Justice Kathpalia rejected the defence arguments point by point. The court observed that mere absence of injury does not negate an offence under . Drawing an analogy, the judgment noted that if a shot is fired but misses, the act can still constitute if the intent and knowledge of likely consequences are present. Here, the petitioners could not deny knowledge that hurling a burning effigy at a security room was “so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability would have caused death.”
The court further held that , which contemplates negligent conduct, had no application because the act was unmistakably intentional. was attracted because the provision covers mischief by fire, not only by explosives.
“Such Acts of Shoot and Scoot Do Not Constitute Protest”
In one of the most striking passages, the court distinguished between legitimate democratic protest and what it termed brazenly disruptive activity:
“Can it be legitimately termed ‘protest’ where the so-called protestors, after burning on road effigy of an individual, cross the road, followed by broad footpath and even the service road in order to throw the burning portions of the effigy on the rooftop of the guardroom… and would immediately in cowardly manner flee away… The answer is a resounding No. This is nothing but a brazenly disruptive activity.”
The judgment went further, placing the episode in a broader context of contemporary protests:
“Protests do form a significant part of a democracy. But violence in the name of protest cannot be acceptable to any tenet of demosprudence. Such acts of shoot and scoot do not constitute protest.”
These observations echo the headline carried by several legal news portals describing the ruling as holding that “Shoot And Scoot Acts Not Protest.”
Frivolous Petition Attracts Costs
Finding no infirmity in the ’s order refusing discharge, the dismissed the revision petition as “completely frivolous” and imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioners to be deposited with www.bharatkeveer.gov.in. The court added a rider that its observations would not influence the final outcome of the trial.
The decision serves as a sharp reminder that symbolic protest must remain within the bounds of law and that courts will examine the actual conduct, rather than the claimed motive, when determining whether criminal charges are made out at the stage of framing.
