‘Violence in the name of protest unacceptable’: Delhi HC on 2022 stir outside J P Nadda’s home

A trial court had dismissed the accused persons’ plea for discharge in the case, specifically for the charges under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 436 (mischief by fire or explosives) in November 2025, following which they moved the Delhi HC challenging the trial court’s order.

Advocate Tyagi said they plan to appeal against the HC verdict.

Justice Manoj Jain, in an order on May 16, terming the protesters’ act as “a brazenly disruptive activity”, defined whether such acts can even constitute “protest”.

“Can it be legitimately termed a ‘protest’ where the so-called protestors, after burning on road effigy of an individual, cross the road… the broad footpath and even the service road to throw burning portions of the effigy on the rooftop of the guard room of the official bungalow of the person being protested against when security men present inside the gate try to stop them… After which, the so-called protestors would immediately, in cowardly manner, flee, instead of as a mark of protest letting the law-enforcement agency take them into custody? The answer is a resounding No. This is nothing but brazenly disruptive activity,” the court held.

The protesters, represented by advocate Vimal Tyagi, had argued that since no deadly weapon was used by them and their intention was only to protest, no case was made out for attempt to murder.

“If it was a simple protest outside the house of that prominent person (Nadda), it remains unexplained as to why the petitioners would, after burning the effigy, go across to the other end… and throw the burning effigy… CCTV footage relied upon by both sides completely demolishes the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that it was simply a protest,” Justice Jain reasoned.

“… merely because nobody got injured and fortunately so, it cannot be said that charge for offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out… the petitioners cannot deny knowledge that their act of throwing the burning effigy… was so imminently dangerous and that…, in all probability, would have caused death… Though for the good fortune of those security men, they escaped unhurt. In any case, the FIR itself specifically alleges that the petitioners tried to kill the security personnel present inside the gate,” Justice Jain recorded.

Similarly for the offence of IPC Section 436, the court held, “… merely because no explosive was used, it cannot be said that the offence is not made out… The offence under Section 436 IPC covers mischief by not just explosive substance but even by fire…”

While the protesters had emphasised that charges under IPC Section 285 (rash or negligent act involving fire or combustible matter) ought to have been framed, the court instead observed, “What the petitioners did was not a negligent act; it was clearly an intentional act.”

Terming the petition to be frivolous and dismissing it with cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to Bharat ke Veer, a voluntary donation arm for the armed forces run by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Justice Jain observed, “To reiterate, 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. It is indeed a matter of serious concern that a section of society today thrives on such disruptive activities in the name of protest.”