The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against an SSC aspirant who attended a protest at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, holding that mere participation in a demonstration does not by itself establish an intention to disobey lawful police directions or obstruct police personnel in their duties.
The student had joined a protest on August 24, 2025, against alleged irregularities in examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The FIR was registered at the Kamla Market police station. The court’s order, as reported by Jagran, examined whether the student could be held criminally liable merely because he was present at the demonstration.
The court said that applying the principle of common intention under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita requires the alleged criminal act to have been carried out to fulfil the shared intention of the people being held jointly responsible. Participation in a protest, without evidence establishing such an intention, was not sufficient to sustain the case against the student.
The demonstration had been permitted at Ramlila Maidan on August 24 and 25, 2025, between 10 am and 5 pm. The permission period and the location formed part of the circumstances placed before the court in the proceedings concerning the FIR.
The prosecution told the High Court that a chargesheet had already been filed against 29 people. Further investigation was continuing in relation to the remaining protesters. The report did not identify the specific allegations or evidence relied upon against each of the other individuals.
The ruling distinguishes between being present at a public demonstration and possessing an intention to obstruct police work or violate lawful directions. That distinction is significant for the administration of permitted protests in the capital, where police authorities regulate large gatherings and criminal cases may involve multiple participants. The court’s reasoning indicates that liability under the common-intention principle must be linked to the alleged criminal act and the shared intention attributed to those accused.
The FIR against the student has now been quashed. The prosecution’s stated position on the chargesheet against 29 other people and the continuing investigation into other protesters remains separate from the relief granted to the petitioner.
