Mere presence not an offence: Delhi High Court quashes FIR against protestor in 2025 SSC demonstrations

Mere presence at a protest venue beyond permitted hours does not constitute an offence, the Delhi High Court recently held while quashing an FIR registered against a competitive examination aspirant who participated in a demonstration at Ramlila Maidan concerning Staff Selection Commission (SSC) exams. [Khurshid Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi]

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

According to the prosecution, around 800 to 1,000 aspirants assembled at Ramlila Maidan on August 24, 2025. While permission was granted only until 5 pm, several protesters stayed back in violation of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 

It was alleged that protesters scuffled with police personnel, leading to the detention of 44 individuals, including Ahmed.   

Ahmed sought an urgent hearing before the High Court, submitting that he had cleared the recruitment examination for the Eklavya Model Residential School and needed to appear for document verification.

He contended that he was neither an organiser nor a speaker, and was implicated merely due to his presence at the venue.   

The Court observed that mere disobedience of an order is insufficient; it must also cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury to public servants. 

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

The Court further held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention under Section 3(5) of the BNS.

“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 bench noted.

The court held that continuation of proceedings against Ahmed would amount to an abuse of the process of law.  

“The Petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters, in the absence of material indicating his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or any common intention to commit the offence. The continuation of the proceedings against him, in these circumstances, would serve no worthwhile purpose,” the judge said. 

The Court accordingly quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua Ahmed, clarifying that the order would not affect proceedings against the other accused.   

Advocates Gaurav Arya, Naveen Bamel, Harsh Goyal, and Manav Trivedi represented Khurshid Ahmed. 

Additional standing counsel Amol Sinha, along with advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan, and Anshul Sharma, appeared for the State.

[Read order]