Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against SSC Protester, Says Mere Presence at Demonstration Is Not an Offence

The Delhi High Court has quashed a first information report (FIR) against a competitive examination aspirant who participated in a demonstration over Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examinations at Ramlila Maidan in 2025, ruling that mere presence at a protest does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

 

Justice Sanjeev Narula allowed a petition filed by Khurshid Ahmed seeking the quashing of an FIR registered at Kamla Market police station under Sections 223(a), relating to disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant, and 3(5), concerning common intention, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

 

According to the prosecution, around 800 to 1,000 aspirants gathered at Ramlila Maidan on August 24, 2025. Permission for the demonstration had been granted only until 5pm, but several protesters allegedly remained at the venue beyond the permitted time, in violation of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

 

The prosecution further alleged that some protesters scuffled with police personnel, leading to the detention of 44 individuals, including Ahmed.

 

Ahmed approached the High Court seeking an urgent hearing, stating that he had cleared the recruitment examination for Eklavya Model Residential School and was required to attend document verification. He argued that he was neither an organiser nor a speaker at the demonstration and had been implicated in the case solely because he was present at the venue.

 

The court observed that a violation of an order issued by a public servant was not, by itself, sufficient to establish the offence under Section 223(a) of the BNS. The alleged disobedience must also satisfy the statutory requirements concerning obstruction, annoyance or injury to public servants, or the risk of such consequences, as applicable.

 

“His mere presence amongst the protesters cannot, without more, be treated as sufficient to establish the offence,” the court observed.

 

The High Court also found that the prosecution had failed to establish the common intention required to invoke Section 3(5) of the BNS. The provision concerns joint liability where a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

 

“The principle of common intention requires that the criminal act be committed in furtherance of an intention shared by the persons sought to be held jointly liable. Mere participation in the same demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel,” the court said.

 

It held that criminal liability could not be attributed to Ahmed merely because he had been present among the protesters, in the absence of material showing that he had knowingly participated in the alleged disobedience or shared an intention to commit the offence.

 

The court further observed that continuing the criminal proceedings in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and serve no worthwhile purpose.

 

The High Court accordingly quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Ahmed. It clarified, however, that its order would not affect the proceedings against the other accused in the case.