ETV Bharat / bharat

Delhi HC Asks Counsel To File Affidavit On Criminal History Of Parliament Security Breach Case Accused

The court issued the direction in line with the Supreme Court's new order. The matter will be heard next on November 10.

Delhi HC Asks Counsel To File Affidavit on Criminal History Of Parliament Security Breach Case Accused
File photo of Parliament Security breach (ETV Bharat)
author img

By ETV Bharat English Team

Published : October 8, 2025 at 8:22 PM IST

2 Min Read
Choose ETV Bharat

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the counsel for Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma and Lalit Jha to file affidavits on their criminal history. They have been accused in the Parliament security breach case, and their bail pleas are pending before the High Court.

A division bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain issued the direction in line with the Supreme Court’s new order. The matter will be heard next on November 10. In an earlier hearing on Manoranjan D's bail plea in July, the High Court had orally remarked that any attempt to disrupt Parliament's functioning could be deemed a highly alarming act with serious national security implications.

The observation came in response to the defence's argument that the use of non-toxic smoke canisters and slogans was a peaceful protest to highlight unemployment. The bench, however, stated, "The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt Parliament. You disrupted Parliament."

The breach happened on December 13, 2023, when Manoranjan and Sagar Sharma leapt into the Lok Sabha chamber during a live session, while Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde protested outside. All four were arrested for coordinating the act using coloured smoke devices.

Earlier, the High Court granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties. The bail conditions included a ban on media appearances, mandatory visits to the police station three times a week, and a restriction on leaving Delhi. However, the Delhi Police opposed bail and presented evidence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. They argued that there was a risk of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses, and obstructing the investigation due to their influence.

The defence criticised the use of the UAPA, calling it excessive and an attempt to suppress dissent. Allegations of assault on the accused inside Parliament also surfaced. On June 7, 2024, the Delhi Police filed a 1,000-page charge sheet against the six accused, detailing their role in the intrusion, which took place on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack. An FIR was registered in this regard on December 14, 2023.

Read More

  1. Parliament Breach: Accused Can't Compare Themselves With Bhagat Singh, Says Delhi HC
  2. Lawyers not available to argue for Parliament breach accused; hearing postponed