New Delhi [India], February 22 : Observing that national interest and the country's international image cannot be compromised under the guise of protest, a Delhi court has held that acts capable of disrupting globally significant events require serious scrutiny and effective investigation.
The Court underlined that while democratic dissent is protected, any conduct affecting security arrangements or India's standing before foreign delegates assumes greater gravity.
The observations came from the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Patiala House Courts while allowing a five-day police custody remand of four accused persons arrested in connection with an incident that allegedly took place at Bharat Mandapam during the AI Summit 2026 in New Delhi.
The Court noted that international summits hosted by India involve the participation of foreign dignitaries and represent the nation at a global platform. Any disruption at such venues, it is observed, may have implications extending beyond a local law-and-order issue and could impact diplomatic engagements and national prestige.
It further observed that although citizens possess the constitutional right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, public order, and security of the State.
Protest, the Court said, cannot be permitted in a manner that interferes with official duties or jeopardises security arrangements during sensitive international events.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly entered the high-security premises of Bharat Mandapam wearing slogan-bearing T-shirts critical of an India-US trade understanding and raised slogans during the summit proceedings. It was alleged that police personnel on duty were obstructed and assaulted while attempting to remove the individuals from the venue.
The Court recorded that medical documents indicated injuries to police officials and noted the prosecution's claim that the incident disturbed proceedings at an internationally attended forum.
While granting police custody, the Court held that investigation at this stage required custodial interrogation to analyse electronic devices, examine communication links, trace possible funding sources, and identify other persons allegedly involved.
The Court observed that such investigative steps could not be effectively undertaken if the accused were sent to judicial custody at this stage, thereby justifying police remand.
Dismissing the bail applications as premature, the Court applied established legal principles relating to the seriousness of allegations, likelihood of interference with the investigation, and the possibility of influencing evidence. It noted that the investigation was at an initial stage and the alleged involvement of other individuals was still being examined.
The Court directed the Investigating Officer to follow all procedural safeguards during custody, including medical examination of the accused and videography of interrogation proceedings, before remanding them to police custody till February 25.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor