No Prima Facie Case for COVID-19 Lockdown Violations; Knowledge and Promulgation of S.144 CrPC Order Essential for S.188 IPC Offence: Delhi High Court - 2025-07-17

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Quashes FIRs Against Tablighi Jamaat Attendees, Cites Lack of Evidence and Abuse of Process

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed multiple FIRs filed against Indian nationals who attended the Tablighi Jamaat congregation in March 2020, finding that the continuation of their prosecution would be an "abuse of the process of the Court." Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the chargesheets failed to establish a prima facie case for offences under lockdown regulations, including disobedience of public orders (Section 188 IPC) and negligent spread of disease (Sections 269/270 IPC).

The court underscored that the petitioners were "helpless people, who got confined on account of lockdown" and had not gathered in defiance of any order but were merely stranded after the sudden imposition of nationwide restrictions.

---

Background of the Case

The petitions were filed by dozens of Indian nationals challenging FIRs registered against them in Delhi between March 31 and April 2, 2020. They had attended the Tablighi Jamaat's annual congregation at Nizamuddin Markaz, an event planned a year in advance, well before the COVID-19 outbreak.

As the pandemic escalated, the government imposed a series of restrictions, culminating in a nationwide lockdown from March 25, 2020. The petitioners, unable to return to their homes across the country, took shelter in various local mosques and residences. Subsequently, police filed FIRs against them for allegedly violating prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., and for acts likely to spread the infectious disease, under the Indian Penal Code, the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Arguments in Court

• Petitioners' Stance: The petitioners' counsel, Ms. Ashima Mandla, argued that the allegations were "embellishments and exaggerations." It was contended that the petitioners were not holding a gathering but were stranded due to the sudden lockdown. A key argument was that the prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was never properly "promulgated," meaning it was not made known to them as required by law. Furthermore, they argued that to be charged under Section 269 IPC for spreading an infection, the prosecution must first prove that they were infected and had knowledge of their condition, which was not the case.

• State's Position: The State, represented by Mr. Amol Sinha, maintained that the congregation of people in one place violated the government's notifications. It was argued that the investigation established a prima facie case and that chargesheets had been correctly filed.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna conducted a detailed analysis of the charges, dismantling the prosecution's case on several legal grounds.

On the Charge of Disobeying Public Orders (Section 188 IPC):

The court found that the prosecution failed to meet the essential requirements to prove an offence under Section 188 IPC.

"...there is no evidence whatever to show that this Notification under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was promulgated and was within the knowledge of the Petitioners. The essential ingredient of promulgation to constitute an offence under Section 188 IPC, has therefore, not even have been established."

The judgment emphasized that the petitioners had gathered before the prohibitory orders were in place and were unable to disperse due to the lockdown. The court noted, "their stepping out of the houses would have been violation of the complete lockdown." Crucially, it found no evidence that the petitioners engaged in any of the prohibited activities, such as demonstrations or new religious gatherings, after the order was issued.

On Charges of Spreading Infection (Sections 269 & 270 IPC):

The court ruled that the charges for negligently or malignantly spreading disease were entirely unsubstantiated. It cited legal precedent to hold that three conditions are necessary:

1. The accused must be infected with the disease.

2. The accused must have knowledge of being infected.

3. There must be mens rea (criminal intent) to spread the disease.

"In the present case as well, there is not a whisper in the FIRs or the Chargesheets that Petitioners were found COVID-19 positive or they had moved out negligently or unlawfully with intent or knowledge to spread the disease of COVID-19..."

On Charges under Disaster Management and Epidemic Diseases Acts:

The court similarly found no evidence to support charges under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act (obstructing a public servant) or Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act. It concluded that there was no averment of any specific violation or obstruction by the petitioners.

Final Verdict and Implications

Citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , the High Court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would be a manifest injustice.

"The continuation of these Chargesheets would tantamount be abuse of the process and also is not in the interest of Justice..."

The court observed that similar cases registered across the country during the pandemic had resulted in acquittals or discharges. Accordingly, it quashed all the chargesheets and proceedings arising from the FIRs, discharging the petitioners. This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the necessity for concrete evidence and adherence to procedural law, even during a national crisis, and protects individuals from being prosecuted for circumstances beyond their control.