New Delhi: A Delhi court observed that while the right to protest is a fundamental feature of democracy, it cannot be exercised in a manner that disrupts public order or harms the rights of others, particularly at an international event attended by foreign delegates.
The Patiala House Court observed Saturday while remanding four Youth Congress members, Krishan Hari, Kundan, Ajay Kumar Singh, and Narsimha, to five days of police custody in connection with a shirtless protest during the AI Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam.
As per the prosecution, the accused persons, in a “pre-planned conspiracy”, gathered February 20 at the high-security venue wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan “India US Trade Deal Compromised”, raised provocative and anti-national slogans, created public disorder, and allegedly assaulted police officials on duty, resulting in injuries to three police personnel.
An FIR was registered at Tilak Marg police station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 61(2), 121(1), 132, 195(1), 221, 223(A), 190, 196, 197 and 3(5).
In its order, the court noted that the summit was “an international event attended by national and foreign delegates” and that the accused had allegedly orchestrated a “premeditated intrusion into the high-security precincts of Bharat Mandapam during the premier international conclave hosting global delegates and dignitaries”.
Rejecting the contention that the act amounted to protected dissent under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, Judicial Magistrate First Class Ravi said: “The right to protest and dissent is fundamental to democracy, enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. However, it is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and (3) for sovereignty, public order and decency.”
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police relating to the Shaheen Bagh protests, the court quoted: “The right to protest is part of fundamental freedoms under Articles 19(1)(a) & (b), but cannot extend to causing grave inconvenience to commuters… public ways cannot be indefinitely occupied… rights of protesters must be balanced with rights of others under Article 21… protests must be at designated places even with permission.”
The order said that the conduct alleged in the present case “palpably transcends the ambit of legitimate dissent, metamorphosing into a blatant assault on public order”.
It added that such actions “imperil not merely the event’s sanctity but also the Republic’s diplomatic image before foreign stakeholders, rendering it wholly unprotected by constitutional safeguards”.
On the question of police custody, the court observed that while “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”, discretion can be exercised where investigative imperatives are demonstrated.
The Investigating Officer submitted that custodial interrogation was required to ascertain the identity and role of other co-accused who allegedly fled the spot, unearth the larger conspiracy, including funding and organisational support, recover and analyse digital evidence such as mobile phones and social media chats, and trace the source of T-shirt printing and related financial transactions.
The court held that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that the requirements referred to by the Delhi Police, including confrontation with electronic evidence and tracing financial and organisational links, could not be effectively carried out in judicial custody.
While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s principle that “bail is the rule and jail the exception”, the court held that the gravity of allegations, presence of absconding associates and potential risk of evidence tampering justified the denial of bail at this stage.
Terming the bail application “premature and untenable at this nascent investigative juncture”, the order observed that the offences implicated “grave threats to public order and state security at an international forum”.
“In view of the above, the application under Section 187 BNSS for police custody remand of all four accused persons is allowed for five days,” the court ordered, directing that the accused be handed over to the Investigating Officer till February 25.
BJP leaders had criticised the protest, terming it inappropriate and accusing the Congress of attempting to derail a national event showcasing India’s technological progress.
In a statement, the youth wing of the opposition Congress said the demonstration was meant to highlight concerns that “corporate interests are being prioritised over national interests” and alleged that the government’s foreign policy stance had weakened. The group also linked the protest to economic issues such as rising prices and joblessness, claiming that young people were increasingly frustrated.
