- By Priyanka Koul
- Mon, 23 Feb 2026 12:09 AM (IST)
- Source:JND
While granting five days of police custody to four Indian Youth Congress workers, Delhi's Patiala House Court on Saturday dismissed the argument that their actions, which involved organising a protest, were an exercise of their constitutional right.
The court observed that, although the right to protest is a fundamental aspect of democracy, it cannot be exercised in a way that disrupts public order or infringes upon the rights of others, especially during an international event attended by foreign delegates.
The Patiala House Court made this observation while remanding the 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.
"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 is subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), which concern sovereignty, public order, and decency," the court observed.
The court rejected the defence's argument and denied the bail applications. The accused will remain in police custody until February 25. In granting police custody, the court referred to the Supreme Court's judgement in the Anti-CAA NRC protests at Shaheen Bagh.
According to the prosecution, the accused, acting in a "pre-planned conspiracy," gathered at the high-security venue on February 20, wearing T-shirts with the slogan "India US Trade Deal Compromised." They allegedly raised provocative and anti-national slogans, created public disorder, and assaulted police officers on duty, leading to injuries to three police personnel.
An FIR was filed at Tilak Marg police station under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 61(2), 121(1), 132, 195(1), 221, 223(A), 190, 196, 197, and 3(5).
The Supreme Court had previously observed, "The right to protest is part of fundamental freedoms under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b), but it cannot extend to causing grave inconvenience to commuters, public ways cannot be indefinitely occupied, and the rights of protesters must be balanced with the rights of others under Article 21. Protests must occur at designated places, even with permission."
The court rejected the claim that the accused's actions amounted to protected dissent under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has consistently held that such rights cannot be exercised in ways that infringe upon the fundamental rights of others or disrupt public peace.
ALSO READ: Chip Manufacturing In India Is A Win-Win: PM Modi At HCL-Foxconn Semiconductor Project Launch
Delhi Police has claimed that the accused, in a premeditated conspiracy, gathered wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan "India US Trade Deal Compromised," raised provocative and anti-national slogans, created public disorder, obstructed and assaulted police officers in the performance of their duties, leading to injuries to ASI Shiv Kumar, ASI Subhash, and HC Sanjeet, corroborated by MLC reports.
The court noted that the investigating officer (IO) emphasised that the accused had executed a premeditated act to tarnish the Government's and India's image before foreign delegates at an international summit, which involved assaulting public servants.
It is alleged that the accused orchestrated a deliberate intrusion into the high-security premises of Bharat Mandapam during the AI Summit 2026, a major international event attended by global delegates and dignitaries.
Further allegations include that the accused wore provocative T-shirts emblazoned with offensive slogans such as "India US Trade Deal Compromised," loudly raised incendiary chants, obstructed public servants in the discharge of their duties, and physically assaulted police officers, causing severe injuries.
Regarding the bail applications, the court deemed the request "premature and untenable" at this early stage of the investigation. The court took into account the gravity of the allegations, the risk of evidence tampering, and the likelihood of flight.
The court stated, "The offences involve serious threats to public order and state security at an international forum, attracting penalties of over three years under Sections 121/612 of the BNS, necessitating strict scrutiny."
The court also noted that the accused hailed from distant regions of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Telangana, which posed a high risk of flight, further compounded by early investigative findings suggesting links to an external conspiracy.
"Additionally, the investigation reveals multiple absconding associates, which increases the risk of evidence tampering, with digital footprints, financial trails, and disclosures from co-accused further exacerbating the situation," the court concluded.
( With Inputs from Agencies )