Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding Khurshid Ahmed’s petition in Khurshid Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi, held that there was insufficient material to show that he had knowingly disobeyed lawful directions or shared a common intention to obstruct police personnel.
The FIR was registered at Kamla Market police station under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, dealing with disobedience of an order issued by a public servant and acts committed in furtherance of a common intention, respectively.
Protest at Ramlila Maidan led to arrests
According to the prosecution, around 800 to 1,000 examination aspirants gathered at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on August 24, 2025, to raise concerns relating to SSC examinations.
Permission for the gathering was granted only until 5 pm. However, several protesters allegedly remained at the venue beyond the permitted time, in violation of prohibitory directions issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The prosecution further alleged that some protesters clashed with police personnel. As a result, 44 people, including Ahmed, were detained.
Ahmed approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR. He maintained that he was neither an organiser nor a speaker at the demonstration and had been implicated merely because he was present at the site.
He also pointed out that he had cleared a recruitment examination for an Eklavya Model Residential School and was required to attend document verification.
Court finds mere presence insufficient
The High Court emphasised that the mere violation of an official order does not automatically establish an offence under Section 223(a) of the BNS. The alleged disobedience must also satisfy the statutory requirement concerning obstruction, annoyance or injury to public servants, or the relevant likelihood of such consequences.
The Court found no sufficient basis to hold Ahmed criminally responsible simply because he was among the protesters.
“His mere presence amongst the protesters cannot, without more, be treated as sufficient to establish the offence,” the Court observed.
It also rejected the attempt to attribute common intention to Ahmed under Section 3(5) of the BNS without material showing that he shared the alleged unlawful objective.
The judge underscored that joint criminal liability requires the act in question to have been committed in furtherance of an intention shared by those being held responsible.
“Mere participation in the same demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel,” the Court held.
FIR quashed against Ahmed alone
The Court concluded that there was no material indicating Ahmed’s knowing involvement in the alleged disobedience or any shared intention to commit the offences.
Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in these circumstances would serve no worthwhile purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court said.
The High Court accordingly quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Ahmed.
It clarified, however, that the decision was confined to him and would not affect the proceedings against the other accused in the case.