Chandigarh admin challenges Punjab and Haryana HC decision to quash rioting case against CM Bhagwant Mann

The Chandigarh Administration has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision to quash a case of rioting and unlawful assembly against Punjab Chief Minister (CM) Bhagwant Mann and other leaders of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipin Pancholi agreed to list the plea.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the UT Chandigarh.

Mehta submitted that the UT Administration has to add more respondents to the plea as they were also granted relief by the High Court in the same case last year.

"We will list it. Impleadment to be filed," the Court said.

The case was registered by Chandigarh Police in 2020 after Mann and others had taken out a protest march against a hike in electricity tariff.

The AAP leaders and workers had planned to surround the then Punjab CM’s residence but were stopped with a water cannon, which allegedly led to stone pelting on the cops.

On November 29, 2025, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the High Court allowed petitions filed by Mann and other leaders for quashing of the FIR.

The Court opined that there was no reason for the police to stop the protestors as no prohibitory order had been issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

“Nobody has been named from amongst the persons present who allegedly pelted stones on the police force. Besides, it is not the case that the petitioners asked them to do so. The nature of alleged instigation by the petitioners has also not been mentioned; nor have specific words or gestures of any kind been attributed to them,” the Court added.

Therefore, it said, there was no basis to ascribe the alleged act of throwing stones by the mob to petitioners. The Court also held that the charges of rioting or assaulting police officials were not made out.

The High Court also said that the offences of violence by unlawful assembly could not have been invoked in this case as no prohibitory orders had been issued.

[Read Live Coverage]