Mere presence at a protest venue beyond the permitted hours does not constitute an offence, the Delhi High Court has held, quashing an FIR registered against competitive examination aspirant Khurshid Ahmed, who had participated in a demonstration at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on August 24, 2025 concerning Staff Selection Commission (SSC) exams, Bar and Bench reported. Justice Sanjeev Narula allowed Ahmed's petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Kamla Market police station under Sections 223(a) (disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), in an order dated October 13, 2026.
According to the prosecution, around 800 to 1,000 aspirants assembled at Ramlila Maidan on August 24, 2025, and while permission was granted only until 5 pm, several protesters stayed back in alleged 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 — these are the prosecution's allegations, and the Court's order quashing the FIR applies only to Ahmed and does not affect proceedings against the other accused.
Ahmed contended that he was neither an organiser nor a speaker and was implicated merely because of his presence at the venue, and sought an urgent hearing, submitting that he had cleared the recruitment examination for the Eklavya Model Residential School and needed to appear for document verification, Bar and Bench reported. Verdictum reported that it was further submitted on his behalf that there was no material to establish that he knew of any particular prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS.
The Court held that for an offence under Section 223(a) of the BNS, knowledge of the order and disobedience of it are essential elements, and that the disobedience must also cause, or tend to cause, obstruction, annoyance or injury to persons lawfully employed. “His mere presence amongst the protesters cannot, without more, be treated as sufficient to establish the offence,” the Court observed, as reported by Verdictum. It found that the allegations about refusal to vacate the ground, instigation and scuffling were directed against the organisers or the gathering generally, and that no conduct was specifically attributed to Ahmed.
The Court also held that the prosecution had failed to establish common intention under Section 3(5) of the BNS against Ahmed, and that he could not be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence among the protesters, in the absence of material indicating his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or any common intention to commit the offence. Holding that continuation of the proceedings against him would serve no worthwhile purpose, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Ahmed, Verdictum and Bar and Bench reported.