New Delhi – A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to 10 of the 23 persons accused of scuffling with police and raising pro-Naxal slogans during the India Gate protest against air pollution last month. However, the court rejected the bail plea of one accused who allegedly raised slogans in support of a Naxal leader at the demonstration site. This split decision highlights the complexities surrounding the case that has drawn significant attention to student activism and law enforcement responses in the national capital.
Background of the India Gate Protest
The India Gate protest was held on November 23, a Sunday, when students from Delhi University and other educational institutions gathered at the iconic monument under the banner of the Delhi Coordination Committee for Clean Air. The demonstration was organized to draw attention to the severe air pollution crisis affecting Delhi residents. However, what began as an environmental awareness campaign quickly escalated into a controversial confrontation with law enforcement authorities.
According to Delhi Police, the India Gate protest had no official permission and turned confrontational when officers attempted to disperse the assembled crowd. The situation deteriorated rapidly, leading to allegations of scuffles between protesters and police personnel. Five students were initially arrested at the protest site, followed by the arrest of 17 more individuals outside Parliament Street police station, bringing the total number of detained persons to 23.
Court’s Bail Decision and Reasoning
Judicial Magistrate First Class Aridaman Singh Cheema delivered a nuanced judgment regarding bail applications in the India Gate protest case. In granting bail to 10 accused individuals, the court observed that the prosecution had produced no material evidence to establish that these accused were linked to any radical or Naxal organization. The magistrate noted that all investigative material, including CCTV footage and video clips from the India Gate protest, was already in police possession.
In a common observation for those granted bail, the court stated, “The allegations are regarding the presence of accused at the protest site raising slogans… no purpose shall be served by keeping the accused in judicial custody further.” The court added that concerns about the accused absconding or tampering with evidence could be adequately addressed through reasonable bail conditions rather than continued detention.
Bail Rejection Based on Organizational Links
The court took a markedly different approach regarding one accused woman identified as Illakiya. The magistrate found that she had indeed raised slogans supporting Madvi Hidma during the India Gate protest and was allegedly a member of the Radical Students Union (RSU), described as a banned frontal organization of Naxals. This connection proved decisive in the bail rejection.
Rejecting Illakiya’s bail plea, the court stated, “The investigation in the identification of other members related to RSU is pending. The protest, which was only for the purpose of pollution, transformed into support of Hidma and the present accused has been identified as the member of the RSU.” The magistrate emphasized that identifying other RSU members was necessary to determine who had conspired to transform the India Gate protest from an environmental demonstration into one supporting a Naxal figure.
Also Read: AQI Temperature Remark: Kejriwal Slams CM’s Controversial Statement
The court further reasoned that releasing Illakiya at this stage might enable her to commit a similar offence or alert other potential conspirators who could abscond, thereby obstructing the ongoing investigation into the India Gate protest.
Multiple FIRs and Re-arrests
The legal complexities surrounding the India Gate protest intensified when Delhi Police lodged a second FIR at Kartavya Path police station on November 28. In a controversial move, eight students were re-arrested under this new FIR just hours after being granted bail in the case filed at Parliament Street police station. The remaining 15 accused who had also secured bail in the Parliament Street FIR were subsequently taken into judicial custody under the Kartavya Path FIR, effectively preventing their release.
This dual FIR strategy by Delhi Police has raised questions about procedural fairness and the right to bail in cases arising from the India Gate protest. The tactic effectively nullified the bail granted under the first FIR, keeping all accused in custody pending proceedings in the second case.
Allegations and Defense Arguments
Police alleged that protesters at the India Gate protest had raised pro-Naxal slogans, transforming what was ostensibly an environmental demonstration into a platform for supporting banned organizations. However, defense counsels strongly dismissed these claims, arguing that there was no material evidence linking most accused to Naxal organizations.
Defense lawyers contended that the offences alleged in the India Gate protest carried a maximum punishment of less than seven years, making bail the rule rather than the exception according to established legal principles. They argued that continued detention without substantial evidence violated the fundamental rights of the accused students.
Current Status and Pending Matters
Thirteen protesters from the India Gate protest remain in judicial custody. All have filed bail applications, on which court orders are awaited. The case continues to draw attention as it raises important questions about the boundaries of peaceful protest, freedom of expression, and law enforcement responses to student activism in India’s capital.
