Delhi District Court
State vs Alka Lamba on 25 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ASHWANI PANWAR:
LD. ACJM-04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 80/2024
PS Parliament Street
U/s 132/221/223 (A)/285 BNS
State Vs. Alka Lamba
Date of Institution of case: 27.06.2025
Date of Judgment: 25.05.2026
JUDGMENT
a. Serial Number of the case Cr. Case No. 14/2025
b. Date of commission of offence 29.07.2024
c. Name of the complainant HC Manish
d. Name, parentage and Alka Lamba,
address of the accused Person D/o Sh. Amar Nath Lamba,
R/o H. no. 24, Akbar Road,
New Delhi
(office), C-39,
Tagore Garden, West Delhi,
Delhi -110027
e. Offence complained of U/s 132/221/223(a)/285
BNS
f. Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty
g. Final order Convicted
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 1 of 80
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to decide
allegations against the accused namely, Alka Lamba, who is
a former Member of Legislative Assembly. At present,
accused is the President of All India Mahila Congress.
2. It needs to be mentioned herein that this is a Special Court
constituted upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, to decide the matters pertaining to sitting/former
Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative
Assembly only, by virtue of the Judgment in case titled
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union Of India, Writ Petition
(C) NO. 699 OF 2016.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.07.2024, PSI
Anita Singh was on emergency duty when HC Manish (Belt
no. 1880/ND), came to the police station and got his
statement recorded that on the aforesaid date, his duty was
at Jantar Mantar protest site where Smt. Neetu Soin,
National Women President Congress, had called for protest
in support of the issue of Women Reservation and that the
accused was the main speaker. It was also stated that 2-3
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 2 of 80
other protests were also being organized and all were
informed that Order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“BNSS”) had been promulgated outside the protest site.
Furthermore, the complainant stated that, at about 01:30 PM,
the accused alongwith other protesters came to the
barricades towards the Tolstoy Road and started raising
slogans, being adamant to “gherao” (surround/siege) the
Parliament. That the Senior Police Officials employed loud
hailers to warn the protesters about the imposition of Section
163 of the BNSS and requested to end their protest, however
the protesters, on being instigated by the accused, did not
pay any heed to the same. It is further stated that the accused
and the protesters pushed the female and male police
officials, jumped the barricades and some of them even
blocked the road opposite Free Church by lying on the main
road which hindered public’s right of way. It is also
mentioned that despite repeated explanations, accused and
the protesters did not listen and thus, were detained. On basis
of the complaint, which disclosed commission of cognizable
offence, the present FIR was registered and the investigation
commenced. Investigation revealed that Order dated
14.05.2024, under Section 163 of the BNSS was issued vide
No. 3401-3525/R-ACP/Pt. Street by ACP, Sub-Division
Parliament Street, New Delhi District. Site plan was
prepared, and videos of the whole incident were collected
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 3 of 80
from the Photo Cell Section of Jantar Mantar on 29.07.2024.
It was also revealed during investigation that Ms. Neetu
Verma Soin wrote a letter as General Secretary, All India
Mahila Congress on 11.07.2024 and 23.07.2024, seeking
permission to organize a protest at Jantar Mantar. On
05.03.2025, the accused was served with a notice under
Section 35(3) of the BNSS through her staff while she was
on a video call and she authorized her staff to receive the
said notice. Further, she undertook to appear before the
Court as and when summoned. The complaint dated
14.04.2025, under Section 215 of the BNSS from ACP, Sub-
Division Parliament Street is also annexed with the police
report since the offence involved Section 221 and 223(a) of
the BNS. The prosecution submits that the accused, despite
being informed that order dated 01.07.2024, u/s 163 of the
BNSS had been promulgated outside the protest site i.e.,
Jantar Mantar Road, came alongwith her supporters and
started marching towards the Parliament House by raising
slogans of Woman Reservation. That the accused alongwith
her supporters moved to the barricades towards the Tolstoy
Road and started raising slogans being adamant to “Gherao”
(surround/siege) the Parliament. The accused and her
supporters were warned to end the protest, however, in vain
and the protest continued. That during the protest, the
accused obstructed the police officials who were performing
their duty and pushed the female as well as the male police
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 4 of 80
officials at the place/site where the alleged incident
occurred. That the accused and her supporters jumped the
barricades by pushing the police officials and even blocked
the road, opposite Free Church and obstructed the public
way. The prosecution thus, submits that the acts committed
by accused constitute grave offences, including obstructing
the public servant in discharge of public functions (Sec.221
of the BNS), assault or criminal force to deter public servant
from discharge of his duty (Sec.132 of the BNS),
danger/obstruction in the public way (Sec.285 of the BNS)
and disobedience to the order duly promulgated by public
servant (Sec.223(a) of the BNS).
4. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was
filed in the court. Thereafter, on 20.08.2025, supplementary
charge sheet was filed. On basis of the police reports and
annexed documents, cognizance of offence was taken and
the accused was summoned to face trial on 20.08.2025.
Copies were supplied to the accused on 15.10.2025.
5. After detailed arguments under Section 274 of the BNSS,
notice of accusation was put to the accused on 19.12.2025
for offence punishable under Sections 132/221/223(a)/285
of the BNS, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 5 of 80
6. Before proceeding to discuss the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, it is relevant to note the exhibited documents and
witnesses who exhibited the same, which are given below –
Witness Identification Description
Exhibiting
PW1 HC Ex. PW1/A Seizure memo of the Pen
Ravinder Drive (Silver HP USB 3.2,
Kumar 32GB).
Ex. PW1/B Certificate u/s 63(4) BSA
regarding the video
recording.
Ex. P-1 The physical Pen Drive
containing 25 video files.
PW4 HC Ex. PW4/A Written complaint regarding
Manish the incident at Jantar
Mantar.
PW5 Sh. Ex. PW5/A Order u/s 163 BNSS dated
Ajay 01.07.2024.
Kumar
Gupta Ex. PW5/B Map showing the Sub-
Division area and exempted
zones.
Ex. PW5/C Complaint/Sanction u/s 215
BNSS dated 14.04.2025.
Ex. PW5/D Second Complaint/Sanction
u/s 215 BNSS dated
03.08.2025.
PW6 SI Ex. PW6/A Endorsement made on the
Om complaint (Ex. PW4/A).
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 6 of 80
Prakash Ex. PW6/B FIR No. 80/2024, PS
Parliament Street.
Ex. PW6/C Certificate u/s 63(4)(c) of
the BSA regarding the copy
of the FIR.
PW11 Ex. PW11/A Rukka prepared for the
WSI Anita registration of FIR.
Singh
Ex. PW11/B Site plan of the place of
incident.
Ex. PW11/C Notice u/s 35(3) BNSS sent
on 09.11.2024 via
Whatsapp.
Ex. PW11/D Notice u/s 35(3) BNSS
served physically on
05.03.2025.
Ex. PW11/E Permission applications
&F dated 11.07.2024 and
23.07.2024.
Ex. PW11/G Undertakings from All India
&H Mahila Congress.
Ex. PW11/I Traffic arrangement letter
from Special Branch.
Ex. PW11/IA Letter from Police
Commissioner to accused.
Ex. PW11/J, General Diary (GD) entries
K, L regarding departure of staff.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven
witnesses. Before proceeding further, it is deemed
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 7 of 80
appropriate to take on record the gist of testimonies of all the
eleven prosecution witnesses.
8. PW-1 HC Ravinder Kumar deposed that, on 29.07.2024, he
was posted at photo section branch of New Delhi. He
deposed that on the said date a protest was conducted at
Jantar Mantar Protest Area by All India Mahila Congress and
he alongwith SI Devender was covering the protest via Sony
FDRAX43A video Camera colour black. The entire
proceeding was captured by him by the abovesaid camera.
Then on demand by PSI Anita Singh, P.S. Parliament Street,
he transferred the video recordings of the entire protest in a
computer, which were then transferred in a Pen Drive, make
HP USB 3.2 storage 32 GB silver colour. He further deposed
that the IO seized the pen drive vide seizure memo Ex.
PW1/A, bearing his signature at point “A” and in support of
the electronic evidence, he gave certificate Ex.PW1/B, u/s
63 (4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (hereinafter
referred to as “BSA”) to the IO, bearing his signature at point
“A”. He deposed that no tampering or any kind of alteration
was done to the video which was recorded by him during the
protest when the video camera was in his possession. With
the permission of the Court, brown coloured envelope
containing a pen drive was taken out. The pen drive was
silver in colour. After seeing the same, witness correctly
identified the pen drive which was seized by the IO in his
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 8 of 80
presence and the same was then Ex. P-1. Further, with the
permission of the Court, the said pen drive was ordered to be
played in open Court and a total of 25 video files were found
in the pen drive, which were played and found that the said
videos were covering the protest and the incident in
question. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Sh. Imran Ali,
Learned counsel for the accused. PW-1 answered that he was
posted at photo section New Delhi District, by the Senior
Officer i.e., Reserve Inspector, on the date of the incident to
record the video. He deposed that no document was handed
over to them regarding assigning of duty at the spot and also
stated that he had not received any written order to go to the
place of incident and conduct the recording. He, however,
volunteered that their duty was assigned through “chitha”
(duty roster). He had reached the spot at 08.30 am. He had
not provided any copy of duty roster to the IO to show that
he was deputed to record the incident. He volunteered that
IO had not asked about the same. PW1 then deposed that the
protest had started at around 10.00 am and it continued till
around 01.00 p.m. He volunteered that he did not remember
the exact timing of the incident and expressed that he could
tell after seeing the video record. He deposed to have done
the recording himself and admitted that he had mentioned in
his certificate u/s 63 (4) of the BSA that the recording was
done by the staff on duty. He volunteered that he and SI
Devender recorded the dharna/protest. He also stated that the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 9 of 80
IO herself arranged the Ex. P-1 i.e., pen drive. He then
deposed that the recording was done by him inside the
protest area of Jantar Mantar and on Tolstoy Marg. PW1
denied the suggestion that he was not posted at the place of
the incident on the said date and that was why he had not
given any document to IO to show that his duty was at the
place of incident. He further denied the suggestion that he
had not done any recording and the suggestion that on asking
of senior police officials, he had signed the seizure memo
and issued the certificate u/s 63 (4) of BSA.
9. PW-2, SI Devender deposed that on 29.07.2024, he was
posted at photo section branch of New Delhi. On
29.07.2024, IO PSI Anita Singh came to the photo section,
NDD and she gave a pen drive to HC Ravinder for
transferring the video of the incident in the said pen drive
from the video camera, whereafter he deposed to have
transferred the video in the pen drive. He identified the
seizure memo Ex. PW1/A prepared by the IO and also
identified his signature at point “B”. He also identified the
pen drive Ex. P-1. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that
he was posted at photo section New Delhi District on the
date of the incident and also stated that the IO came to photo
section to take the video at about 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. on
29.07.2024. He explained the process of transfer of the video
as first to the computer and then into the Pen Drive by HC
Ravinder. He deposed that the computer of HC Ravinder was
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 10 of 80
of make HP, but he could not remember the exact model of
the said computer. He admitted that in his presence the video
files were transferred from the Camera to the computer and
then to the pen drive by HC Ravinder.
10. PW-3 ASI Ashok deposed that on 29.07.2024, he was posted
at PS Parliament Street as ASI and, on that day, he was on
arrangement duty at Jantar Mantar from 09.00 a.m. He
further deposed that at Jantar Mantar, there was a protest
going on of All India Mahila Congress led by the accused.
He deposed that the accused was giving speech and stating
to cordon the Parliament building. He then deposed that at
about 01.30 p.m., the accused alongwith women group,
which she was leading, crossed the first barricade towards
Church Road north. After that, the second barricade was also
crossed by the accused alongwith her supporters, which was
installed at about 10 meters apart towards Church Road
North. He further deposed that the accused was lying on the
road and blocked the Church Road for the passersby,
whereafter, the women police officials dispersed the crowd,
following which the accused was detained alongwith the
supporters and put in the police van. He also stated that the
police tried to disperse the crowd, but the accused alongwith
her supporters pushed the police officials. He deposed that
he could identify the accused if shown to him, however,
identity of the accused was not disputed by the defence. He
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 11 of 80
deposed that in his presence, the senior officers announced
that order u/s 163 of the BNSS was in force in that area. In
his cross examination by the defence counsel, PW3 stated
that his duty hours were from 09.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. on
that day. He also answered that there was arrangement duty
that day and accordingly, his duty was assigned at Jantar
Mantar. He answered that he was telephonically informed by
“Chitha Munshi” one day prior to the incident, to be present
at the protest site and stated he was not given any written
order for the same. He stated that at about 10.00 a.m., people
started gathering for the protest called by All India Mahila
Congress. He did not know whether any other protest was
going on alongwith protest organized by All India Mahila
Congress. He deposed to have known the accused before the
day of incident and he could not tell exactly at what time
accused reached the protest site. He then answered that the
accused first addressed the crowd alongwith other speakers
and thereafter, they started moving towards the barricades.
He deposed that there were 200 to 300 people in the protest
and that there were around 30-40 people who marched
towards the barricades and tried to climb and jump over it.
He deposed that there were three barricades starting from
Jantar Mantar protest site till Church Road. He did not know
under how much area at Jantar Mantar people can protest.
He did not know till which barricade out of the three
barricades Section 163 of the BNSS was imposed. He did
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 12 of 80
not know how much area was exempted for holding protest
at the place where the incident in question occurred. He did
not remember the name of the senior officers who had made
the announcement of imposition of Section 163 of the
BNSS, and he again stated that the ACP was one Gupta Ji.
PW3 then denied various suggestions of the defence that he
was not present at the site of the incident on the said day;
that his duty was not at the site of incident and that was why
he could not produce the written order of his duty at the site
of the incident; and that in his presence, any of the protester
crossed any barricade and stopped the public traffic.
11. PW-4, HC Manish deposed that on 29.07.2024, he was
posted at Parliament Street as HC. On that day his duty was
assigned at the protest site from 09.00 a.m. He deposed that
there were protests going on and one of them was organized
by All India Mahila Congress wherein, many women
supporters had gathered. He deposed that 5-6 speakers had
delivered the speech and one of the speakers was the
accused. He also deposed that she was instigating the
supporters for surrounding “Gherao” of the Parliament
building and, on her instigation, she and her supporters
marched towards the barricade. He deposed that at the same
time, Senior Officers announced on the loud speaker about
imposition of Section 163 of the BNSS at the site, however,
all the women supporters alongwith the accused defied the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 13 of 80
announcement and jumped the first barricade and crossed
the same. He deposed that the accused alongwith the
supporters, used force against the police official who were
stopping them and jumped the second barricade and crossed
the same. He stated that the accused constantly instigated the
supporters for surrounding (Gherao) of the Parliament
building and that the accused alongwith supporters lied
down on the Tolstoy Road due to which public way was
obstructed, whereafter, the accused and her supporters were
detained and sent via police van. He deposed that he gave
his complaint to the IO, which was then exhibited as
Ex.PW4/A, bearing his signature at point “A”. He deposed
that he could identify the accused if shown to him, however,
identity of the accused was not disputed by the defence. PW4
in his cross examination, stated that his duty hours were from
09.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. that day. He answered that there
was arrangement on that day and accordingly, his duty was
assigned at Jantar Mantar. He deposed that he was
telephonically informed by the duty officer one day prior to
the incident, to be present at the protest site and was not
given any written order for the same. He deposed that at
about 10.00 a.m., people started gathering for the protest
called by All India Mahila Congress and he knew the identity
of the accused before the day of the incident, but he did not
know exactly at what time accused reached the protest site.
He answered that the accused first addressed the crowd
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 14 of 80
alongwith other speakers and thereafter, they started moving
towards the barricades. He did not know the number of
people present at the protest site but answered that there
were around 50-100 people who marched towards the
barricades and tried to climb and jump over it. He stated that
there were three barricades and all three barricades were put
to close the Jantar Mantar protest site. He stated that there
were two barricades from where the accused and other
supporter jumped the barricade and he could not tell the
name of the supporters who had jumped the barricade
alongwith the accused. He stated that none of the place after
the barricade was exempted from Section 163 of the BNSS
enforcement as told to him by the Senior Officers. He stated
that he had also seen the order promulgated under section
163 of the BNSS and after seeing the judicial record,
particularly the order promulgated under section 163 of the
BNSS as well as the map annexed with the said order, he
could not tell about the area which was exempted from
protest in the said order. PW4 also could not show from the
order that the area outside the barricades was also not
exempted. He stated that he had seen the violation of law by
the accused and her supporters with his eyes and he deposed
to have given the complaint to the DO himself. He stated that
he gave the complaint to the DO at about 09.00 p.m. and that
the DO had not given any receiving of his complaint. He
identified Ex. PW4/A as his complaint, which was given to
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 15 of 80
DO by him and stated that he had not given any other written
complaint to the DO. He stated that he had typed the
complaint himself as he knows Hindi Typing, but he did not
remember on which computer he had typed the same. He
stated to be present at the Police Station after his duty got
over at 05.00 o’clock and stated that there was no computer
allotted to him at the PS in his personal capacity. He did not
know from which printer he had printed the complaint at the
PS. At that stage, witness was shown the back side of the
complaint i.e., Ex. PW4/A and was asked to see from point
“X” to “X-1”. After seeing the same, witness stated that he
had typed the portion in his complaint which was from Point
“X” to “X-1” before giving it to DO. When he had given the
complaint, only he had signed it and there were no second
signatures below his signature. The second signature was
then encircled as ‘Z’. He did not know whose signature that
was. IO had taken his statement after registration of FIR on
29.07.2024 after 10.00 p.m. PW3 then denied various
suggestions that he was not present at the site of incident on
the said day; that his duty was not at the site of incident and
that was why he could not produce the written order of his
duty at the site of incident; that in his presence any of the
protesters crossed any barricade and stopped the public
traffic; that he had not given any complaint typed by him and
Ex. PW4/A was prepared by Senior Officers and he was
asked to sign; that IO had recorded his statement after the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 16 of 80
registration of FIR; that Ex. PW4/A was an already prepared
statement by the IO before registration of FIR; that the said
statement Ex. PW4/A was recorded before the registration of
FIR and other statement was recorded; that he had signed
Ex. PW4/A on instructions of Senior Officials and he never
wanted to give any complaint in his personal capacity; and
the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on instructions
of Senior Officials.
12. PW-5, Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta deposed that, on 01.07.2024,
he was posted as SDPO, Parliament Street. He deposed that
on that day he had issued an order u/s 163 of the BNSS vide
no. 5345-5470/R-ACP/Pt. Street/NDD dated 01.07.2024,
copy of which was then Ex. PW5/A, bearing his signature at
point “A”. The map showing area of sub-division Parliament
Street including the exempted area for demonstration, was
exhibited as Ex. PW5/B bearing his signature at point “A”.
He further deposed that, later on 14.04.2025, on requisition
of IO, he issued complaint u/s 215 of the BNSS against the
accused, vide no. 2314/SO/ACP/Pt. Street for the offence u/s
223A of the BNS, which was then Ex. PW5/C bearing his
signature at point “A”. Again, on 03.08.2025, another
complaint u/s 215 of the BNSS, against the accused, for
offence u/s 221 of the BNS, was issued vide no.
5513/SO/ACP/Pt. Street dated 03.08.2025 which was then
Ex. PW5/D bearing his signature at point “A”. Witness PW5
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 17 of 80
in his cross examination, stated that the exempted area was
from Jantar Mantar Road, Tolstoy Marg upto the shop in
name of Kuti which was always cordoned by putting
barricades wherein the exempted area must be around 125-
150 meters. He deposed that this exempted area was as per
the guidelines issued by DCP, New Delhi, however, he did
not remember the specific guidelines issued by the
concerned DCP in the year 2017-2018. He stated that these
guidelines were with the X-branch where the applications
were given by the organizer for seeking permission of any
demonstration and his office used to get the copy of the
permission/rejection letter issued in pursuance of any
application for staging any demonstration. He deposed that
the copy of the application was directly submitted with the
X-branch, but he could not say whether the applicant while
granting permission for demonstration got the information
as to under how much of area he was allowed to stage the
demonstration. He however volunteered that the applicant
was supposed to sign an undertaking containing the
guideline for holding any demonstration. He then deposed
that he was also posted at the demonstration site on the date
of the incident, but he was not the eye-witness of the
jumping of the barricades by the accused alongwith her
supporters, however, stated that he reached the spot where
the accused and her supporters were sitting at Parliament
Street and obstructing the public way. He stated that it was
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 18 of 80
at the T point of YMCA guest house lane opposite Registrar
of Cooperative Societies office and in front of free church
compound. He answered that there were 8-10 people sitting
on the road and obstructing the Parliament Street and stated
that he was inside the demonstration area at Jantar Mantar
when accused alongwith 8-10 people tried to jump the
barricade. He deposed that the barricades were placed at
about 120-150 meter at the point of Jantar Mantar Road and
Tolstoy Marg. He admitted as correct that on the date of
signing of Ex. PW5/C he had full knowledge about the
whole incident but he had given the sanction only u/s
223A/3(5) of the BNS. On being questioned as to if on the
date of signing of Ex. PW5/C he was aware of the whole
incident and had also seen 8-10 people blocking the road on
the date of incident, why he had given complaint only
against accused Alka Lamba and not against others, PW5
answered that the complaint was issued on basis of the
investigation report and document submitted by the IO
wherein the identity of other accused persons was not
established by the IO. He answered that he did not ask IO
whether she had made any attempt to identify other 8-10
accused and stated that he had no idea who had moved the
application seeking permission for the protest. PW5 was
shown the permission application alongwith ID card of the
permission seeker which was the part of the Chargesheet and
was questioned as to why he had not filed complaint against
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 19 of 80
the permission seeker for violation of Section 163 of the
BNSS, to which he answered that the copy of this document
was not part of the application sent to his office for grant of
sanction for complaint u/s 215 of the BNSS. He further
answered that he had signed the complaint u/s 215 of the
BNSS only after seeing the draft chargesheet and documents
those were attached with the draft chargesheet whereas the
application form for seeking permission for the
demonstration was not attached. He admitted as correct that
he was not shown complete chargesheet by the IO on the day
when he had signed the complaint u/s 215 of the BNSS.
Attention of PW5 was then drawn to his signature on the
chargesheet at point “A” which were put on 15.04.2025 and
asked as to whether he had not seen the complete
chargesheet before signing the same and find out that there
were documents which clearly showed the identity of the
permission seeker. PW5 answered that at the time of
forwarding the chargesheet on 15.04.2025, he had only gone
through the report u/s 193 of the BNSS and had not seen the
documents. PW5 then answered that it was his responsibility
to go through entire chargesheet alongwith its documents
before forwarding it to the Court and the chargesheet had not
been forwarded in a mechanical manner. He voluntarily
stated that he had forwarded the chargesheet on the report of
SHO PS Parliament Street and had gone through the facts.
PW5 then denied various suggestions that the area which
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 20 of 80
was exempted was more than 500 meters; that he had not
seen the accused persons blocking the Parliament street; that
he had given sanction on asking of senior officers and he was
not aware about the facts of the case; that he had also not
seen the chargesheet and its documents and signed it in a
mechanical manner on the directions of senior officers; that
he was not empowered under law to sign second complaint
u/s 215 Ex. PW5/D and had signed on asking of Senior
officials to implicate the accused falsely; that he was
deposing falsely on asking of senior officers; that the
accused was made accused in the chargesheet malafidely on
asking of senior officers; that other persons protesting
alongwith the accused were deliberately not made accused
in the present matter.
13. PW-6, SI Om Prakash has deposed that on 29.07.2024, he
was posted at PS Parliament Street as Duty Officer and his
duty hours were from 04.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. He
deposed that at about 09.30 p.m., he received the complaint
already Ex.PW4/A and on the said complaint, he made
endorsement at the bottom of the second page, the said
endorsement was then Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at
point “A”. He further stated that he registered the FIR no.
80/2024 PS Parliament Street, which was exhibited as Ex.
PW6/B bearing his signature at point “A” and exhibited
certificate u/s 63(4)(c) of the BSA, same was then Ex.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 21 of 80
PW6/C bearing his signature at point “A”. In his cross
examination, PW6 answered that the complaint already Ex.
PW4/A, was given to him by WSI Anita and admitted as
correct that complaint was not given by Manish to him. He
also admitted as correct that the information regarding the
complaint was received at PS at 1700 hours and voluntarily
clarified that complaint might have been received by WSI
Anita and she had given him at 09.40 p.m. He deposed that
the DD entry of the complaint was made by the computer
operator on his directions before registering the FIR and the
DD no. 105A was given to the complaint. He did not know
whether Ex. PW4/A was a statement given to the IO by the
complainant or a complaint and stated that Ex. PW4/A was
given to him by WSI Anita. He deposed that the complainant
Manish did not come to his office to give the complaint and
the signature at point “Z” were of WSI Anita and he did not
know whose signature are at point “A”. He admitted as
correct that portion on second page of Ex. PW4/A from “X”
to “X1” was already typed when he had received the said
document as complaint.
14. PW-7, SI Sudeep Chahar, has deposed that on 29.07.2024,
he was posted at PS Parliament Street as SI. He deposed that
at about 09.00 a.m., he was on duty at Jantar Mantar Protest
site, wherein the protest was organized by All India Women
Congress in which the accused was the chief speaker and
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 22 of 80
while giving her speech she was provoking the crowd for
surrounding the Parliament building. He deposed that the
senior officer were giving information regarding the
applicability of section 163 of the BNSS in the said area
through loud speaker, however, due to provocation by the
accused, all the protesters were ready to surround the
Parliament building and they suddenly crossed the first
barricade at Jantar Mantar side towards Free Church. He
further deposed that the female staff which were on duty
tried to stop the protesters from crossing the second
barricade but the protesters pushed them and crossed the
same after jumping it towards opposite Free Church and
blocked the road as well as they lied on the road. He also
deposed that the senior officers requested not to block the
road but request was not acceded to and then the ATO
namely, Insp. Neeraj Kumar sent message on the wireless set
to the control room, whereafter, the order was received from
the senior officers to detain the protesters. Thereafter, with
the help of female staff, the protesters including the accused
were picked up and detained. He specifically deposed that
the accused also started pushing the police officials in order
to resist their detention and the road was opened for the
general public. He deposed that he could identify the
accused if shown to him, however identity of the accused
was not disputed by the defence. PW7 in his cross
examination answered that his duty was from 09.00 a.m. till
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 23 of 80
the end of the program and the dharna/demonstration ended
at about 02.30 p.m. He could not remember at what time
accused reached the spot, but stated that the accused in her
speech made from the dais instigated the gathering to
“Gherao the Parliament house”. He deposed that at about
01-01.30 p.m., the accused made the speech at the gathering
and immediately after the speech given by the accused,
protesters jumped the barricades. He could not tell how
many people joined the protest and that he did not know the
exact number of protesters who jumped the first as well as
the second line of barricades. He also did not know as to how
he got to know that his duty was at the spot that day, however
voluntarily stated that sometime there was Chithha pasted in
the Police Station or Chithha Munshi informed the staff
telephonically. He did not have any document showing that
he was on duty that day when the alleged incident took place
and stated that the buses in which protesters were detained
and transported were already called before the protest by the
senior officers present there. He did not know where the
buses took the detained persons and also the number of buses
in which the protesters were detained and transported. He
further answered that in the evening, he came to know about
the registration of FIR the same day, which he came to know
from the staff of PS. He replied that he had not received any
notice u/s 160 CrP.C, but stated that the IO had recorded his
statement after a year of the incident, at which time he was
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 24 of 80
posted in the same police station. PW7 then denied the
suggestion that his duty was not on the spot and that he was
not present at the spot on the day of incident.
15. PW-8 Insp. Mahabir Singh deposed that on 29.07.2024, he
was posted at PS B. K Road as SHO, wherein at about 09.00
a.m., he was on duty at Jantar Mantar Protest site. He
deposed that the said protest was organized by All India
Women Congress in which the accused was the chief
speaker, and while giving her speech she was provoking the
crowd for surrounding the Parliament House. He stated that
around 01-01.30 p.m., the accused alongwith some
protesters moved towards the barricades placed near Tolstoy
Marg, whereafter the accused alongwith some protesters
climbed the barricades and tried to cross the barricades. He
stated that he made announcement regarding imposition of
prohibitory orders under section 163 of the BNSS and
requested not to create law and order problem and disperse
peacefully, however, the accused alongwith other protesters
kept on raising slogans and jumped the barricades and ran
towards Tolstoy Marg pushing the staff deployed on the
barricades. He also stated that the accused alongwith other
protesters ran towards Parliament Street opposite Free
Church and also, blocked the main road after lying on the
same due to which inconvenience was caused to the general
public. He further deposed that further hindrance was also
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 25 of 80
created to the free flow of traffic on the main road,
whereafter, he had flashed a message to Control Room
regarding the situation. PW8 stated that they also followed
them and with the help of staff detained the accused as well
as the protesters and removed them from the road. PW8
further stated that his statement was recorded by the IO later
on, and he could identify the accused if shown to him,
however, the identity of the accused was not disputed by the
defence. PW8 in his cross examination by the defence, stated
that his statement was recorded by IO after around a year
from the date of the incident. He answered that no notice u/s
160 CrP.C was given to him by the IO and that he had
reached the spot at around 09.00 a.m. on the day of the
incident. He could not tell how many protests were going at
Jantar Mantar on the said date, however stated that the
accused delivered a speech wherein he heard the accused
instigating the crowd to march towards Parliament house.
He replied to have received written instruction about his duty
at Jantar Mantar on the said date and also got information of
the duty through the control room a day prior. He also
answered that he was at the spot till 02.30-03.00 p.m. but did
not know how much area was exempted from proclamation
of Section 163 of the BNSS at around Jantar Mantar. He also
did not know whether the barricades placed at Jantar Mantar
were in the exempted area or were placed outside the
exempted area. He stated that around 20-25 people jumped
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 26 of 80
the barricades, of which around 10-15 people were detained
and transported in the bus. He replied that he had not given
any written complaint that the accused and 25 people had
breached the 163 BNSS prohibitory order. When questioned
about the exempted area and whether the barricades were
placed inside or outside the exempted area, how come he
made an announcement to not to cross barricades, PW8
answered that the protesters were supposed to protest
peacefully and not to cross the barricades in unruly manner.
He stated that the protesters were apprised about the
prohibitory orders, jump the barricades and march towards
Parliament house. He deposed that he came to know about
registration of the present FIR the same day, that, it was
registered at about 08.00 to 09.00 p.m. He also deposed to
have known the accused before the incident. PW8 then
denied the suggestions of the defence, that he was not
deputed at the spot and he was not present at the time of the
incident; that he, on the directions of senior officers, deposed
falsely after a year.
16. PW-9, WCt. Renu has deposed that on 29.07.2024, she was
posted at PS Parliament Street as WCt. and on that day at
about 09.00 a.m., she was on duty at Jantar Mantar Protest
site. PW9 deposed that the said protest was organized by All
India Women Congress in which the accused was the chief
speaker and while giving her speech she was provoking the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 27 of 80
crowd for surrounding the Parliament building. She deposed
that the senior officer were giving information regarding the
applicability of section 163 of the BNSS in the said area
through loud speaker, however, due to the provocation from
the accused all the protesters were ready to surround the
Parliament building and they suddenly crossed the first
barricade at Jantar Mantar side towards Free Church. She
deposed that she alongwith other female staff, which were
on duty, tried to stop the protesters and the accused from
crossing the second barricade but they pushed them and
crossed the second barricade after jumping on it towards
opposite Free Church and blocked the road and lied on the
same. PW9 stated that the senior officers requested not to
block the road but request was not acceded to, whereafter the
ATO namely Insp. Neeraj Kumar sent message on the
wireless set to the control room. She deposed that the order
was received from the senior officers to detain the protesters
and accordingly the female staff picked up and detained the
protesters including the accused. PW9 also deposed that the
accused also started pushing the police officials in order to
resist their detention, after which the road was opened for
the general public. PW9 deposed that she could identify the
accused if shown to her, however the identity of the accused
was not disputed. PW9 in her cross examination answered
that she did not know the identity of the accused before the
protest. She replied that the staff on duty told her that the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 28 of 80
accused person was Alka Lamba and deposed that her duty
was from 09.00 a.m. till the end of the program, which ended
at about 02-02.30 p.m. PW9 then replied that the accused
reached the spot at about 11-11.15 a.m. and in her speech
made from the dais instigated the gathering to “Gherao the
Parliament house”. PW9 also answered that at about 12-
12.30 p.m. the accused made the speech at the gathering,
after which she herself started walking towards the barricade
and other protesters followed her. PW9 answered that there
were 200-250 people present to join the protest, of which
about 20-25 protesters jumped the first as well as the second
line of barricades. She deposed that there were other protests
also going on at the spot other than the program organized
by Mahila Congress. PW9 answered that there was Chithha
pasted in the Police Station, or Chithha Munshi who
informed the staff telephonically about the duty, but she did
not have any document showing that she was on duty on the
day when the alleged incident took place. PW9 also did not
know whether the buses in which protesters were detained
and transported were already called before the protest by the
senior officers or called after detaining the protesters and she
did not know where the buses took the detained persons. She
could also not know the number of buses in which the
protesters were detained and transported. She also did not
know who all were detained alongwith the accused. PW9
then replied that she came to know about the registration of
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 29 of 80
FIR after a year at the time when IO recorded her statement,
but she had not got any notice u/s 160 CrP.C. She also
deposed that she was posted in the same Police station when
her statement was recorded and was not amongst the staff
who were detaining the protesters and boarding the bus. She
replied that she sustained no injury, even when the accused
pushed her when she alongwith her supporters were running
towards the barricades for jumping the same. PW9 did not
know the exact number of female staff present at the spot
and also did not know about any female staff member who
had sustained injury due to the Dhakka Mukki done by the
accused and other protesters. The witness denied the
suggestion that her duty was not on the spot and that she was
not present at the spot on the day of the incident.
17. PW-10, WCt. Chanchal, has deposed that on 29.07.2024, she
was posted at PS Parliament Street as WCt., wherein at about
09.00 a.m. she was on duty at Jantar Mantar Protest site. She
stated that the All India Women Congress organized protest
where the accused was the speaker and she was provoking
the crowd by giving speech to surround the Parliament
building. PW10, like other prosecution witnesses, deposed
that senior officer were giving information regarding the
applicability of section 163 of the BNSS in the said area
through loud speaker. PW10 also said that due to
provocation from the accused, all the protesters were ready
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 30 of 80
to surround the Parliament building and they suddenly
crossed the first barricade at Jantar Mantar side towards Free
Church. PW10 also stated that she alongwith other female
staff, which were on duty, tried to stop the protesters and the
accused from crossing the second barricade but the crowd
and the accused pushed them after jumping it towards
opposite Free Church and blocked the road and lied on the
same. PW10 further deposed that the senior officers
requested not to block the road but request was not acceded
to, whereafter the ATO namely Insp. Neeraj sent message on
the wireless set to the control room. PW10 deposed that then
the order was received from the senior officers to detain the
protesters and with the help of female staff the protesters
including the accused were picked up and detained. PW10
further deposed that the accused also started pushing the
police officials in order to resist their detention, only after
which the road was opened for the general public.
PW10 stated to be able to identify the accused if shown to
her, however the defence did not dispute the identity of the
accused. PW10 when cross examined by the defence, stated
that she did not know the identity of the accused Alka Lamba
before the protest. She stated that the staff on duty told her
that the accused person was Alka Lamba. PW10 also stated
that her duty was from 09.00 a.m. till the end of the program
and about the program, she answered that it ended at about
02-02.30 p.m. PW10 stated that the accused reached the spot
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 31 of 80
at about 11-11.15 a.m. and in her speech made from the dais,
she instigated the gathering to “Gherao the Parliament
house”. PW10 then answered that at about 12-12.30 p.m.,
the accused made the speech at the gathering, whereafter she
herself started walking towards the barricade and other
protesters followed her. PW10 said that there were 200-250
people present to join the protest, of which about 20-25
protesters jumped the first as well as the second line of
barricades. PW10 said that there were other protest also
going on at the spot other than the program organized by
Mahila Congress. PW10 said that there was Chithha pasted
in the Police Station, or Chithha Munshi informed the staff
telephonically about the duty. PW10 also did not have any
document showing that she was on duty on the day when the
alleged incident took place and she did not know whether
the buses in which protesters were detained and transported
were already called before the protest by the senior officers
or called after detaining the protesters. PW10 could not tell
where the buses took the detained persons or the exact
number of buses in which the protesters were detained and
transported. PW10 did not know who all other persons were
detained alongwith the accused and she replied to know
about the registration of FIR after a year at the time when IO
recorded her statement. PW10 also said that she got no
notice u/s 160 CrP.C and that her statement was recorded
after a year of the incident. PW10 also stated that she was
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 32 of 80
not amongst the staff who were detaining the protesters and
boarding the bus and that she had not sustained any injury.
She did not know the exact number of female staff present
at the spot and also did not know about any female staff
member who had sustained injury due to the Dhakka Mukki
done by the accused and other protesters. PW10 also denied
the suggestion that her duty was not at the spot and that she
was not present at the spot on the day of the incident.
18. PW-11, WSI Anita Singh has deposed that on 29.07.2024,
she was posted at PS Parliament Street as WSI. PW11 said
that she was on emergency duty from 08.00 A.M to 08.00
P.M., when HC Manish gave his complaint at the PS which
was marked to her for the further course of action. She said
that the complaint was already Ex. PW4/A bearing her
signature at point “Z”. PW11 deposed that rukka was
prepared by her which was then Ex. PW-11/A bearing her
signature at point “Z”, which was then sent to DO for
registration of FIR. PW11 deposed that she prepared the site
plan after taking complainant to the spot, which was then Ex.
PW-11/B bearing her signature at point “A”. PW11 deposed
that on 29.07.2024 itself, video from photo cell section, New
Delhi was seized in a Pen Drive, vide seizure memo Ex.
PW1/A bearing her signature at point “C” and the Pen drive
in which video footage was collected and same was already
Ex. P-1 and the certificate regarding the same from HC
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 33 of 80
Ravinder was already Ex. PW1/B. PW11 deposed that on
09.11.2024, notice u/s 35(3) of the BNSS was given to the
accused Lamba which is Ex. PW11/C, and then she recorded
statement of the witnesses u/s 163. PW11 deposed that the
accused had not joined the investigation and again on
05.03.2025, she went to the office of All India Congress and
served the notice u/s 35 (3) of the BNSS which is Ex.
PW11/D, to the staff of the accused as she was busy on a
Video Call and told that whenever court will summon her,
she will be present. She deposed about the other facts of the
investigation, i.e., the order u/s 163 of the BNSS with the
sub-division area map issued by the ACP concerned on
record which she identified to be exhibited as Ex. PW5/A
and Ex. PW5/B. She also deposed about obtaining sanction
u/s 215 of the BNSS which is Ex. PW5/C; the application
seeking permission to organize protest at Jantar Mantar
dated 11.07.2024 and dated 23.07.2024 filed by All India
Mahila Congress to concerned office through Neetu Verma
Soin with ID proof, which are Ex. PW11/E & Ex. PW11/F
(respectively); and the undertakings dated 12.07.2024 and
23.07.2024 from the All India Mahila Congress through
Neetu Verma Soin regarding protest at Jantar Mantar which
were Ex. PW11/G & Ex. PW11/H, respectively. PW11 also
identified Ex.PW11/I i.e., the letter dated 28.07.2024 from
DCP Special Branch to DCP concerned, New Delhi
regarding traffic arrangement at the protest site on
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 34 of 80
29.07.2024 and Ex. PW11/IA i.e. letter no. 114553 dated
22.07.2024 to the accused from Police Commissioner
regarding Gherao of Parliament. She then deposed about
filing of police report in April 2025, and about further
investigation wherein she recorded statements of four
witnesses i.e., Insp. Mahabir Singh, SI Sudeep, Ct. Renu and
Ct. Chanchal who were acquainted with the facts of the case
and present at the spot. PW11 also deposed that the
supplementary chargesheet was prepared and filed in the
court in August 2025. PW11 deposed that Ex.PW5/D was
also obtained i.e., second sanction u/s 215 of the BNSS dated
03.08.2025 and copy of General diary regarding departure at
the site of Insp. Mahabir Singh SHO PS B. K Road, Ct.
Chanchal and Ct. Renu i.e., Ex.PW11/J, Ex.PW11/K and
Ex.PW11/L, respectively were filed and placed on record.
PW11 deposed that she could identify the accused, however
the identity was not disputed by the defence and then the
witness was cross examined. PW11 answered that she knew
the accused before the protest. PW11 also stated that she got
posted in PS Parliament Street in December 2023 and was
on training before that. PW11 answered that on the date of
incident, she was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to
08:00 PM and all the PCR calls and complaints were marked
to Emergency Duty Officer. PW11 admitted that no
complaint or PCR call could be marked to the Emergency
Duty Officer after his/her expiry of emergency duty hours.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 35 of 80
She also admitted that at 08:00 PM, another duty officer had
taken the charge as Emergency Duty Officer in the police
station. PW11 answered that HC Manish gave complaint to
the DO in the evening but she did not know the exact time.
PW11 then answered that the complainant had given the
complaint to the DO and DO had informed her
telephonically about the complaint and thereafter DO had
marked the complaint to her. PW11 further replied that the
complaint was marked by SHO through DO and the
complaint was marked to her 15-20 minutes after it was
handed over to DO by the complainant. PW11 replied that
she got the soft copy of the complaint and she took out the
print out of Ex. PW4/A from her computer. She stated that
soft copy of the complaint was given to her in the pen drive
by the complainant and DO. PW11 also stated that the
complainant also had given a written complaint to the DO
which was typed copy and the typed copy of the printed
written complaint was not part of the chargesheet. PW11
voluntarily stated that the soft copy was given by the
complainant which was the same to the typed copy. PW11
identified her signatures at Point “Z” on Ex. PW4/A and
stated that IO signs below the signature of the complainant
for endorsement. PW11 denied few suggestions of the
defence, that no complaint was given by H.C. Manish and
Ex. PW4/A was typed and prepared by her on the
instructions of senior officers that is why her signatures were
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 36 of 80
at the end of the complaint. PW11 also denied that HC
Manish was forced by the senior officers to sign the
complaint. PW11 then answered that H.C Manish had given
the complaint Ex. PW4/A in his official capacity as he was
on duty at the spot and that is why sanction was required,
she then had typed the endorsement which was Ex. PW11/A
in soft copy of the complaint and gave it to DO; thereafter,
DO had made endorsement which was Ex. PW6/A. PW11
stated that she had not filed any certificate under Section 65-
B Indian Evidence Act with regard to printing of Ex. PW4/A
from her computer and volunteered that it was not
mandatory. PW11 did not know the exact time, however,
stated that the FIR was registered between 09:00 PM to
10:00 PM. PW11 further stated that at about 10:00 PM, after
registration of the FIR, she went to the spot with the
complainant to make the site plan and came back to the
police station within half an hour; that she was called back
to the police station by the senior officers to take the case
after expiry of her duty hours as she was the junior most IO
in the police station. She answered that the photo section is
in the same building of PS New Delhi. She did not remember
exact time when she collected the video footage of the
incident from the photo cell section but stated that it was
collected on the same date on 29.07.2024. She deposed that
she gave the pen drive Ex. P-1 to the photo cell section for
providing the video footage of the incident and she had
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 37 of 80
collected the pen drive from a General Store located in
police station which provides the articles required for the
investigation. PW11 stated that there was no requisition
application on record to procure the pen drive from the
General Store and stated that she already had 3-4 pen drives
with her which were issued by the General Store to her
earlier and she used one of them for collection of the video
from the photo cell of the present matter. PW11 then stated
that Ex. PW1/B was signed by H.C. Ravinder at the time of
handing over the video in the pen drive and later she
recorded statement of witness namely ASI Ashok (PW-3) on
16.08.2025. PW11 further stated that she had not given any
notice to PW-3 to join the investigation and she had not
investigated who all police personnel were on duty at the
spot of incident from PS Parliament Street. PW11 did not
know how many persons were present at the spot from the
PS Parliament Street on the date of incident and further she
came to know PW-3 was present on the spot of incident after
going through DD entries of the date of incident. She stated
that she only found PW-3 relevant for recording of statement
under Section 161 of the CrP.C for preparing first
chargesheet and volunteered that it was her first case and she
had recorded the statement of those witnesses whom she
considered fit for the case. PW11 denied the suggestions that
she picked and chose witnesses who were ready to depose
falsely against the accused on the instructions of senior
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 38 of 80
official. She deposed to have sent notice under Section 35(3)
of the BNSS on 09.11.2024 on whatsApp number of the
accused which is Ex. PW11/C, and also she had gone
through the CCTV footage provided by the photo cell
section i.e. Ex. P-1. She deposed that around 10-15 accused
were clearly seen violating the proclamation under Section
163 of the BNSS and jumping the barricades and blocking
the road, however despite her best efforts, she could not find
out their names and whereabouts. PW11 then denied various
suggestions of the defence that she did not investigate about
the other accused on the instructions of senior officers as
they only want to implicate the accused in the present case;
that senior officers told her to prosecute only the accused;
that on instructions of senior officers, she did not conduct
fair investigation. PW11 admitted that Ms. Neetu Verma
Soin had applied for the permission to organize protest at
Jantar Mantar and the two applications filed by Ms. Neetu
Verma Soin are already Ex. PW11/E and Ex. PW11/F, but
said that she did not find Ms. Neetu Verma Soin relevant to
be called to join investigation at that time. PW11 also
admitted that she was aware of the identity and address of
Ms. Neetu Verma Soin who was the organizer of the protest
at Jantar Mantar in which the accused participated and
violated the orders under Section 163 of the BNSS. When
asked as to why Ms. Neetu Verma Soin has not been made
accused in the present case, PW11 answered that the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 39 of 80
complainant stated that it was the accused who had violated
the law and pushed the police officers and only the name of
the accused was stated to her. PW11 could not say after
going through Ex. PW5/B as to what were the dimensions of
the area which is exempted under Section 163 of the BNSS
at Jantar Mantar, but voluntarily stated that the area which is
exempted is highlighted in the map was surrounded by
barricades. She admitted that no dimensions of the exempted
area are given in the map or in the order under Section 163
of the BNSS and also admitted that there is no document to
show that the barricades at Jantar Mantar were placed
outside or inside the exempted area. She even admitted that
there is no permanent marking or demarcation of exempted
area at Jantar Mantar so that protesters could be aware of the
exempted area. PW11 deposed that she had supplied the
chargesheet alongwith all the documents to the ACP for
obtaining complaint/sanction under Section 215 of the
BNSS. PW11 then admitted that the ACP had granted first
sanction under Section 215 of the BNSS for offences under
Section 223(A)/3(5) of the BNS only and then she had filed
the first chargesheet under Section 221/223(A)/3(5)/132/285
of the BNS however, there was sanction only for the offence
under Section 223(A)/3(5) of the BNS. PW11 further
answered that she had conducted further investigation
because Hon’ble Court declined to take cognizance with
respect to sections other than under Section 223(A)/3(5) of
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 40 of 80
the BNS. PW11 then admitted that neither the court nor the
senior officers directed her to conduct the further
investigation and even admitted that there was no written
order to conduct further investigation, however, she was
orally asked by the court and the senior officers to conduct
the further investigation. PW11 answered that she had
obtained the second sanction under Section 215 of the BNSS
dated 03.08.2025 Ex. PW5/D only to ensure that the court
takes cognizance on the chargesheet. PW11 then admitted
that she did not find out any new fact or evidence in her
further investigation on basis of which she had filed the
second chargesheet. PW11 could not tell whether second
sanction can be taken for the same chargesheet, however
stated that she had placed on record general diary entry of
the witnesses mentioned in the second chargesheet but she
did not place general diary entry of the witnesses in the first
chargesheet as there was only one witness. PW11 deposed
that there was no injury to any staff or general public on the
date of incident caused by accused as there was only Dhakka
Mukki with the police staff and that the protesters blocked
the Tolstoy road which caused inconvenience to the general
public, however, no statement of any public witness was
recorded by her. PW11 however denied the suggestions of
the defence that she had made only Alka Lamba as accused
on instructions of her senior officers; that the barricades
were put inside the exempted area; that the ACP clearly told
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 41 of 80
her that the offence is only made out under Section
223(A)/3(5) of the BNS and that is why he has signed the
sanction only for the prosecution under the said section; that
she had conducted further investigation and obtained second
sanction to cover up the lacuna in her first chargesheet; that
there was no need for further investigation except for the
reason to cover up lacuna in the first chargesheet; that
Tolstoy Road also falls under the exempted area under
Section 163 of the BNSS; that the accused did not block any
road or caused any inconvenience to the general public that
is why there is no public witness in the present case; that she
has prepared the charge sheets on instructions of senior
officers to falsely implicate only the accused Alka Lamba;
that she was deposing falsely on instructions of her senior
officers.
19. No other witness was examined in PE and on the statement
of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PE was closed on 13.04.2026.
20. All the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to the
accused, as appeared in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. In the course of examination u/s 313 of the Cr.PC
(Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023), dated 09.04.2026, accused
stated that she was falsely implicated in the matter. In
particular, accused stated that she was one of the speakers in
the program organized by All India Mahila Congress at
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 42 of 80
Jantar Mantar, where women supporters joined in solidarity
from across the country demanding women reservation in
Parliament. She defended that she has not committed any
offence as the protest was going on peacefully in the
exempted area and at no point there was any violent act or
violation of law committed by her or the protesters. She also
defended that no order of imposition of section 163 of the
BNSS was communicated to her or to the protesters and the
protesting women wanted to symbolically show that they
wanted to Gherao the Parliament to put pressure on the
government; however, the call for Gherao was merely
symbolic and the protesters never proceeded towards the
Parliament building. She stated that on asking of women
protesters, she along with others crossed the first barricade
to register a symbolic protest and lay down between the first
and second barricades, but neither she nor any of the
protesters crossed the second barrier. She then defended that
no public way or road, including Church Road or Tolstoy
Road, was blocked or obstructed, and they caused no
difficulty for the public in free passage. She lastly defended
that when police persons tried to lift them, neither she nor
any protesters pushed any official intentionally; rather,
pushing was initiated by the police and protesters only
lightly pushed back to save themselves from being pulled by
the male police officials.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 43 of 80
21. The defence chose not to lead DE, despite grant of
opportunity and DE was closed on 18.04.2026.
22. As is the norm, the matter was then taken to the stage of final
arguments. Due opportunity was given to both the sides.
Oral arguments were heard at length. This Court has heard
Sh. Chiranjit Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Imran
Ali, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
23. The prosecution based on the evidence adduced above
alleges the commission of offence punishable under the
following provisions of the BNS – 1. Section 132 – Assault
or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of
his duty; 2. Section 221 – Obstructing the public servant in
the discharge of public functions; 3. Section 223(a) –
Disobedience to the order duly promulgated by public
servant; and 4. Section 285 – Danger/obstruction in the
public way or line of navigation. Ld. Addl. PP submits that
presence of the accused at the protest site is not disputed,
that the accused was instrumental in leading the
demonstrators out of the permissible area of the protest, that
the accused can be seen in the videos using criminal force
and assaulted the police officers on duty while willfully
disobeying order duly promulgated by a public servant, that
accused caused obstruction to road/public way, caused
annoyance to the public as well as police officers on duty
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 44 of 80
and that the accused caused danger to life, health and safety
of other demonstrators as well the police officials on duty
and accordingly it is prayed that the accused be convicted in
the present matter.
24. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused
be acquitted in the present matter while taking defences
which are summed up as follows- that the prosecution is
barred ab initio by Section 215 of the BNSS (Section 195
Cr.P.C.) for want of a valid written complaint by the public
servant concerned with the first charge-sheet; that the
supplementary charge-sheet and Second Complaint u/s 215
of the BNSS are bad in law; that the order under Section 163
of the BNSS was admittedly never communicated to the
accused or to the protesters and there exists no proof of
communication, even the exempted area and its dimensions
are in the knowledge of officer concern; that the prosecution
has failed to prove that the protest crossed the “exempted
area” and the prosecution’s own witnesses admit ignorance
of the dimensions of the exempted area; that the protest was
a peaceful, symbolic, constitutionally protected protest
under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of
India for the implementation of women’s reservation in
Parliament — a cause that has since been accepted and acted
upon by Parliament; that there is no proof whatsoever of
“assault” or “criminal force” against any public servant
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 45 of 80
within the meaning of Section 132 of the BNS and there is
no MLC to that effect; that there is no proof of any
“obstruction” in any “public way” within the meaning of
Section 285 of the BNS as the accused never crossed the
exempted area; that the entire investigation is a tutored, mala
fide and politically motivated exercise with grave material
contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses; and that no fair investigation and accused version
was never taken by IO.
25. In support of the above, defence has also cited about 18
judgments. The defence firstly cited Devender Kumar v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 1009, to argue that the bar
under Section 195 of the CrPC is absolute on the Court
taking cognizance. The next defence has been that the power
to order further investigation rests with the Magistrate
concerned or a higher Court and not with the investigating
agency itself. Defense relies on the said ratio-decidendi
reiterated in four judgments namely Pramod Kumar & Ors.
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No. 350 of 2024; Vinay
Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762; Devender Nath Singh
v. State of Bihar; and Peethambaran v. State of Kerala,
(2024) 16 SCC 65.
26. To bring home the argument that Section 178(3) of the CrPC
obligates the IO to obtain further evidence – oral or
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 46 of 80
documentary and only then forward a supplementary report.
It is argued that in absence of new evidence, a judicial
magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a
police report lacks investigation rigour and fails to satisfy
the requisites of Section 173(8) of the CrPC. It is also argued
that a supplementary chargesheet merely re-appreciates
material already on record is, in law, no supplementary
chargesheet at all. In this regard the defence has relied upon
the judgment titled as Mariam Fasihuddin and Anr. v. State
by Adugodi Police Station and Anr., 2024 INSC 49. Two
other judgment namely Saloni Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2017) 3 SCC 286 and Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR
1962 SC 1206, are also relied upon to argue that a
prosecution commenced without recourse to the procedure
under Section 195 of the CrPC is void ab initio, there being
an absolute bar against the Court taking seisin of such a case
otherwise. Further, judgment of Mohan Kukreja v. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6398 is relied upon
by the defence to argue that non-compliance with Section
195 is a defect which cannot be cured subsequently, whether
by the prosecution filing a supplementary chargesheet or by
the public servant filing a fresh complaint after cognizance.
The said ratio-decidendi has been reiterated in Sachin & Ors.
v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine 8986.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 47 of 80
27. The defence, while arguing on the merits of the case, stated
that the protest in question was a peaceful, symbolic,
constitutionally protected protest for women’s reservation
without any personal gain and no criminal intent. The
judgments to support this right of the accused, cited are
Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Government of J&K & Ors., (2016)
15 SCC 525; Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of
Police, AIR 1973 SC 87; and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti
Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324. Defence
also argued that Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, is the legal authority on the point that mere physical
contact during an arrest, without requisite intent to cause
harm or deter a public servant from duty, is insufficient for a
conviction under Section 353 of the IPC/ Section 132 of the
BNS.
28. Defence also stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun
Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7
SCC 1, held that absence of certificate under Section 63 of
the BSA (corresponding to Section 65-B Indian Evidence
Act), renders Ex.PW4/A inadmissible in evidence. Again
arguing factual lacunae in the present case, the defence while
placing reliance upon the judgements of Dharam Pal v. State
of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 1917, and Kashmiri Lal v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 6 SCC 595, stated that it is settled law that
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 48 of 80
a prosecution’s case has to be viewed with grave suspicion
where not even a single independent/ public witness has
been cited.
Analysis of the material/Appreciation of evidence
Communications before the date of incident
29. Ex.PW11/E is a letter dated 11.07.2024 written by one Ms.
Neetu Verma Soin, General Secretary, All India Mahila
Congress to The Deputy Commissioner of Police, New
Delhi District seeking permission to hold “Protest to
implement Women Reservation Bill” on Monday 29th July,
2024 at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Ex.PW11/G and
Ex.PW11/H are two identical ‘undertakings’ dated
12.07.2024 and 23.07.2024, respectively, to abide by the
terms and conditions of Standing Order No.48/2022 framed
on the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1153 of 2017 for
conducting the above programme. The undertaking
categorically recorded that the participants of
dharna/demonstration shall immediately comply with all
lawful directions given to them by the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi or any other police officer on duty at any stage
of the rally or dharna/demonstration. The undertaking also
records that the organizers shall not move in shape of march
from the prescribed place of dharna/demonstration except
from the parking to the prescribed place of
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 49 of 80
dharna/demonstration or as symbolic march duly permitted
by the District Police. During this the organizers were to
abide by the instructions/directions of the police. The
undertaking was also to the effect that
dharna/demonstration/meeting shall only be held at the
prescribed place/venue.
30. Ex.PW5/A is a prohibitory Order dated 01.07.2024 passed
by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division
Parliament Street, which records that, unrestricted holding
of public meetings, processions/demonstrations are likely to
cause obstruction to traffic, danger to human safety and
disturbance to public tranquility. Accordingly, exercising
powers conferred by section 163 of the BNSS prohibitory
order was passed covering the whole area of Sub-Division
Parliament Street excluding the exempted area at Jantar
Mantar Road. The area map has been separately exhibited as
Ex.PW5/B.
31. The above document clearly shows that the organizers as
well as all participants were aware of the permissible
activities within the permissible area, and all were duty
bound to scrupulously follow the instructions of the Senior
Police Officials on duty. These are not unreasonable
restrictions upon the rights of the organizers, participants
and the accused. There were two categorical undertakings to
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 50 of 80
abide by such terms by the organizer Ms. Neetu Kumar Soin
and the same was to be informed to the leaders and speakers
attending the same.
Incident as seen in the videos and testimonies
32. This Court is reminded of a cardinal rule of evidence that
documentary evidence shall exclude oral evidence. The
defence has tried to show certain discrepancies in the
testimonies of the witnesses present at the spot and even
challenged the extent of protest area and countered
allegations of the prosecution case. In such eventuality, this
Court shall look at the videos of the incident first, which are
in the form of documentary evidence, which would not only
counter the allegations but also the defence, if found
contrary to the documentary evidence. One pen drive was
exhibited Ex.P1 and proved through PW1 and PW2. PW1
deposed that he was in photo section branch of New Delhi
and on 29.07.2024, there was a protest held at Jantar Mantar
by All India Mahila Congress and he alongwith SI Devender
was covering the protest via Sony FDRAX43A video
Camera colour black. The entire proceeding was captured by
them in the abovesaid camera. PW1 further deposed that on
demand by PSI Anita Singh PS Parliament Street, he
transferred the video recording of the entire protest in
computer and thereafter, the same video was transferred in a
Pen Drive, make HP USB 3.2 storage 32 GB silver colour,
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 51 of 80
which is Ex.P1. PW2 also deposed that PSI Anita Singh
produced the same pen drive Ex.P1 and at her request, he
transferred all the videos in the pen drive Ex.P1.
33. Ex.P1 is found to be, as described, make HP USB 3.2 storage
32 GB silver colour, and an effort has now been made to
chronologically arrange the 25 videos. The videos do not
bear time stamp, however coupled with the testimonies of
the witnesses and backtracking the sequence of events, some
sense of chronology can be made, considering that the first
arrangement of dharna/protest has been recorded, then some
speeches, etc. are recorded, followed by the events as alleged
which are subject matter of this trial. Same events have been
captured from two cameras since PW1 and PW2 were
recording the place of the incident from different locations
from their respective cameras. The table of chronology and
events is as under –
Video no. & Event
duration
00387.MTS This video covers some other protest at the
0Min:50Sec Jantar Mantar Area on the same date as the
date of incident.
00392.MTS Protest in question, wherein the protesters are
2Min:15Sec arriving.
00393.MTS Protest in question, when speeches were
1Min:41Sec delivered and protesters started to gather.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 52 of 80
00076.MTS Speeches made in the protest and accused
1Min:39Sec Alka Lamba can be seen on the stage, while
one speaker Jyoti stating on the microphone
to the gathering that protest was being led by
National President Ms. Alka Lamba (accused
herein).
00404.MTS Speeches made in the protest and (at 2:53
04Min:33Sec internal clock) accused Alka Lamba can be
seen giving her speech
00405.MTS One song is being played and in the end part
0Min:35Sec accused Alka Lamba again takes on the
microphone to thank the gathering.
00434.MTS Shows some movement of protesters from the
5Min:53Sec siting area of the protest towards barricade
while sloganeering can be heard.
00436.MTS The protests reached first layer of barricades
5Min:53Sec (physically two rows of barricades have been
placed and tied together). Alka Lamba can be
seen posing for the media/ news cameraman
and gestures other protesters to cover the
entire barricade from the protest area side.
The police force comprising of women forms
human chain and are seen holding the
barricades which is being pushed by the
protesters from the other side. Accused Alka
Lamba can be seen gesturing protesters to
cover other portions of the barricades and
also gestures some protesters, who were
present between first and second layers of
barricades, to reach the second barricades.
At 2:55 of internal clock, accused can be seen
climbing the first layer of barricades and she
stands on the two layers of barricades with
other protesters.
At 5:20 of internal clock, announcements
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 53 of 80
were made that climbing barricades can cause
injuries and protest was declared illegal for
having climbed the barricades and exceeded
the time undertaken for protest.
00437.MTS The video opens with announcement being
1Min:48Sec made that climbing barricades could hurt
someone and the protest was declared illegal.
At 0:33 of internal clock, accused can be seen
to have first jumped the first layer of
barricade in the middle of the human chain
formed by women police force and then
pushed and rushed towards the second layer
of barricades.
At 1:13 of internal clock, the protesters led by
the accused can be seen to have lied on the
asphalt road with some of the protesters and
despite announcement to clear the area and
seize the protest, the accused and protesters
continue to lie on the road. This asphalt road
is between the first and second layer of
barricades.
00088.MTS The video shows chaos and sloganeering
17Min:13Sec while protesters can be seen to push the first
layer of barricades from the protest area side,
which is being held by women force forming
chain.
At 4:20 of internal clock, accused can be seen
to have climbed the first layer of barricades
and is standing on the two rows of barricades
tied together to form the first layer of
barricade.
At 6:35 of internal clock, announcement can
be heard that standing on the barricade can
cause hurt and protest being declared illegal.
At 7:57 of internal clock, the accused can be
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 54 of 80
seen to jump the first barricade first and held
other protesters to jump with her. She then
can be seen leading the protesters to push the
police officials to reach the second layer of
barricade and at 10:25 of internal clock, the
accused can be seen to have lied on the
asphalt road between the first and second
layer of barricading.
00438.MTS Protesters can be seen lying on the asphalt
2Min:00Sec road between the first and second layer of
barricades. Accused is surrounded by other
protesters lying on the road.
00439.MTS Accused with other protesters is still lying on
1Min:23Sec the asphalt road and announcements being
made to clear the protest site. She further can
be seen gesturing the protesters to cover more
area on asphalt road.
00440.MTS Some of the protesters were gestured by the
3Min:00Sec accused to engage with women police
officers and police officials.
00441.MTS Accused gestures some of the protesters to
2Min:00Sec engage with police personnel towards the
second layer barricade, while she moves
towards the corner of the second layer of
barricade with other protesters scheming to
jump the second layer of barricading.
00442.MTS At 0:08 of internal clock, accused is seen to
0Min:38Sec jump the second barricade.
00089.MTS Accused can be seen to gesture the protesters
07Min:07Sec to cross the second layer of barricade and at
0:51 of internal clock, the accused can be
seen jumping the second layer of barricade.
00090.MTS Protesters can be seen being removed by the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 55 of 80
17Min:13Sec police one by one in a peaceful manner. There
are buses arranged to detain the protesters
and to be removed from the protests site.
00446.MTS Few protesters who jumped both the layers of
2Min:25Sec barricades can be seen running on the main
Tolstoy Road. Protesters were detained and
removed from the protest site in buses.
00091.MTS Protesters continued to be removed from the
13Min:03Sec protest site.
00447.MTS Protesters continued to be removed from the
2Min:24Sec protest site.
00448.MTS Protesters continued to be removed from the
1Min:06Sec protest site.
00449.MTS Protesters continued to be removed from the
1Min:03Sec protest site.
00450.MTS Protesters continued to be removed from the
3Min:13Sec protest site.
00453.MTS Protesters continued to be removed from the
2Min:19Sec protest site.
00457.MTS Protesters continued to be removed from the
3Min:18Sec protest site.
34. As already deposed by PW1 and PW2 (both from photo
section branch, New Delhi District and have covered the
relevant events of the protests), that the videos as described
above, shows the accused being National President, All India
Women Congress, leading the dharna/demonstration. She
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 56 of 80
herself made speeches/announcements and even took center
stage in the entire demonstration. The events have been
captured by two different cameras and videos show that the
accused was amongst the first to get over the first layer of
barricades. The videos clearly show that the accused was
amongst the first few to climb these barricades and she
continued to pose for the news channels and cameras on the
opposite side of the first barricades. She then can be clearly
seen to gesture protesters to cover the entire length of the
barricades and they all can be seen to push the barricades.
These barricades could be seen held by women officials
from the opposite side. The accused can clearly be seen to
be the first to jump the barricade onto the human chain of
women police officials, other protesters followed the suit,
and they all pushed the police officials and ran towards the
second layer of barricades. The following videos show that,
when the police officials stopped the protesters before the
second layers of barricades, the accused with other protesters
lied on the asphalt road. All these acts of the accused and
other protesters were in contravention of constant appeal of
the senior police officials made on the loud hailers at the
protest site. The accused can then be seen gesturing the
protesters to engage police officials at the second barricades,
while she, with other protesters can be seen to jump the
second layer of barricades which opened right onto the main
Tolstoy Road. The accused played a pivotal role in leading
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 57 of 80
the protesters and continued with her gestures in guiding
every move of the protesters. The loud hailers were used to
request the accused and protesters to climb down the
barricades, to vacate the asphalt road area and to confine the
protests only to the permitted Jantar Mantar Protest Area,
which was the actual the exempted area.
35. In backdrop of this documentary evidence, the defence of
the accused at the stage of framing of notice and her
statement, post prosecution evidence, need to be read. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At later stage
of the trial, in her statement under section 313 of the CrPC,
she admitted her presence at the place of incident, however
defended that the call for gherao of Parliament was symbolic
call and at no point any of the protesters intentionally wanted
to disrupt the ongoing parliamentary proceedings that day.
She also stated that neither she nor any of the protesters
crossed the exempted area at Jantar Mantar and blocked any
public road and that there was no hindrance or blockage of
the public freeway to have caused annoyance to public. She
further stated that there was no demarcation of exempted
area at Jantar Mantar which could be identified by the
protesters and none of the protesters had crossed the second
barricade. She also stated that protesters symbolically lied
down on the area between the two barricades and that neither
she nor any other protester pushed any police official
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 58 of 80
intentionally and also, she stated that pushing was done by
the police officials. She finally stated that the protesters were
only trying to save themselves from pulling by the male
police officials and protesters lightly pushed back the police
officials.
36. From the above statement of the accused, her presence at the
place of protest has not been denied. She even admits being
in the area beyond first layer of barricade and to have lied on
the road in the area between first and second layer of
barricade. This part of the statement of accused finds
corroboration in pen drive Ex.P1. The said exhibit has not
been challenged for want of proof nor any part of the video
has been disputed to be doctored or morphed. The videos as
explained above, are categorically contradictory to the
defence of the accused and brings home the allegations of
the prosecution.
37. The videos show that constant announcements were made
by senior police officials to seize the protest when the
protesters crossed the first layer of barricade. The
announcement was categorical that protest was limited in
time and only at Jantar Mantar Protest Area, which was
marked up to the first layer of barricades. Nevertheless, it
was the All India Women Congress, which had sought
permission for holding dharna/demonstration and the two
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 59 of 80
undertakings as mentioned above make it amply clear that it
was the duty of the protesters to adhere to the timings and
area of protest. No effort, from the stage of the protest in
question, was made by any speaker to apprise the protesters
as to the timing as well as the area of protest. The Delhi
police had put in place sufficient barricade to demarcate the
protest area. The accused Ms. Alka Lamba was announced
as National President and primary leader to lead the protest
in question, even the number of posters at the venue depict
her as the center figure leading the protest. It was thus, duty
of the organizers as well as the accused to know exactly the
timing and area of protest and even adhere to said timing and
area. The undertakings Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H shows
number of volunteers to be 40 and 50, respectively, and none
of the videos in pen drive Ex.P1, shows any of the volunteers
guiding the protesters to adhere to timings and area of
protest. The accused can be seen repeatedly gesturing the
other protesters to cover the barricade, jump the same and
even led them by jumping off the first barricade first and she
was the first one to jump the second barricade too. Between
these two events, she led the protesters to lie on the asphalt
road with other protesters, not once but twice and she could
even be seen in the video gesturing the protesters to cover
more area to lie down.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 60 of 80
38. The videos would show that this asphalt road was beyond
the first layer of barricade and before the second layer of
barricade. Prior to the forceful entry of the protesters, this
area could be seen to be used by the police officers, media
personals and other pedestrians for free movement.
Pedestrian walks, dividers are present in this area, however,
clearly the asphalt road is public way and was being used as
such, for free movement by media, police and other persons.
Once the accused and the protesters jumped the first layer of
barricade and they were stopped from reaching the second
layer of barricade, the accused with other protesters lied on
this asphalt road. The accused and protesters even got up
from the road for a brief moment only to lie again on the
same road and the accused could be seen in one video to
gesture the protesters to cover more area. The announcement
from senior police officials could also be heard in the
background, that such act of lying on the road could hurt
persons and protesters were even directed to vacate the area
within 10 minutes. No such compliance was done by the
accused or the protesters and the accused led the protesters
to engage with the police officers to cross the second layer
of barricade and she even led the other protesters to herself
cross the second layer of barricade first. The videos thus,
clearly show the aggressive action of the accused in leading
the other protesters to violate the duly promulgated Order,
block a public road and even use criminal force against the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 61 of 80
police officers, both male and female. The accused, being
central leader in the protest in question, fueled the
aggression of protesters instead of abating the same. Once
she jumped the second barricade and was detained by the
police, remaining protesters could be seen in the videos,
asking the police officers to produce the accused to talk to
her before ending the protest. This clearly shows that she
played pivotal role in organizing, leading and fueling the
protest to aggressive levels. Once she enjoyed such prestige
amongst the protesters, she cannot be allowed to escape the
legal consequences of her actions for mere defence that she
was one of the several speakers. The accused defence of
innocence has been disproved by documentary evidence.
39. Returning to the cardinal principle of law that documentary
evidence excludes oral evidence. Section 54 and Section 56
of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘BSA’) incorporates this principle. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, once the documentary
evidence Ex.P1 is proved on record, even the prosecution
ocular testimonies would be excluded from being read in
evidence, if found contrary to the documentary evidence.
The witnesses PW1 to PW11 have deposed in support of the
documentary evidence about presence of the accused at the
place of incident, the protest exceeding its allotted time as
well as protesters forcing their way beyond the exempted
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 62 of 80
area. The defence has pointed to certain discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses about
dimensions of the exempted area, whether barricades were
inside or outside the exempted area, source/ authenticity of
‘exempted area’, how many barricades were placed at Jantar
Mantar, which barricade was crossed and distance between
barricades. No doubt certain differences do appear in
testimonies of the police officials, however, it is common
understanding that not all the police officials who were
present and have deposed before the Court, were acquainted
with all the minute details of Jantar Mantar Protest Area.
Most witnesses who deposed in this case, were informed
about duty roster one day prior to the incident and hence,
when order to depute police officials for maintaining law and
order at a place of protest is issued, such officers are placed
under the authority of senior officer deputed to manage the
same. All such police officials would thus follow orders
rather than on their own, interpret the extent of exempted
area. The barricades placed around the Jantar Mantar protest
area clearly show that ample effort was made by the police
to clearly show the extent of exempted area. The first layer
of barricades (which consisted of two rows of barricades tied
together), showed that exempted area was inside this layer
of barricade. The organizers were duty bound to know the
area of protest and communicate the same to the protesters
gathered there. The 40 or 50 volunteers mentioned in the
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 63 of 80
undertakings Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H were duty bound
to control the protesters within time and place of protest. The
protesters had no right to climb the said barricades, while
announcements were also made that the same could cause
injuries and also that protest had exceeded its time limit and
crossing the first barricade was violation of prohibitory order
making further protest illegal. In fact, no announcement
could be heard from the police while the protesters were
inside the first layer of barricade, same would ipso facto
make it clear as to the extent of exempted area.
40. The defence has tried to put all the burden on the police
officials to prove the same, while it was the organizers’ duty
to adhere to the timings and extent of protest area. The two
undertakings Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H make no
communication to the police to seek clarification as to the
extent of protest area. Certain differences in the testimonies
of the police officials could be of no detriment to the
prosecution case, when Ex.P1 establishes and proves all the
allegations. Moreover, it is the common knowledge that
Jantar Mantar is a regular protest site and see numerous
protests on daily basis and, at times, several protests are
organized simultaneously in a single day. In view of the
same, not all details could be and would be remembered by
the police officials who witness many protesters at the place
of incident. Besides that, prosecution witnesses were
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 64 of 80
examined before the Court after about two years from the
date of incident. In such a scenario, certain differences are
bound to occur and are even natural to show that they are
deposing truthfully to the best of their memory.
41. The defence reliance on judgments of Anita Thakur case
(Supra), Himmat Lal K. Shah case (Supra), Mazdoor Kisan
Shakti Sangathan case (Supra) and Mahendra Kumar Sonker
case (Supra) are clearly distinguishable and not applicable in
the facts of the present case. The allegations which stands
proved by the prosecution, does not favour the accused’s
plea of peaceful, symbolic, constitutionally protected
protest. The protest in question was clearly beyond time
period allotted, exceeded the exempted area and even
exceeding the legitimate expectancy of peace and order. The
accused by her words, gestures and actions, turned the
protest aggressive and there were visible concerns of risk of
hurt to herself, fellow protesters as well as police officials.
The human chain of the women police officials was pushed
several times by the protesters and they were deterred from
maintaining law and order in the area, beyond the exempted
area. The protest when was within the barricading was not
announced by the police to be disbursed.
42. Another set of judgments relied by the defence of Dharam
Pal case (Supra) and Kashmiri Lal case (Supra) are also not
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 65 of 80
covering the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Merely because the prosecution witnesses are only police
officials, itself cannot be the sole ground of disbelief. The
investigation as well as trial established a documentary proof
in the form of Ex.P1. The accused also admitted her presence
as well as jumping of first layer of barricade. Ex.P1 has not
even been challenged by the defence to be morphed or
manipulated. Ex.P1 itself was sufficient documentary proof
to sustain the case of the prosecution, however each of the
witnesses PW1 to PW11 have further corroborated the
prosecution’s allegations to meet the requirement of law to
prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
Technical and legal challenge
43. The defence has raised a technical challenge as to the facts
surrounding lodging of the FIR, typed format of first
information and typed record of Duty Officer as well as
signatures on the same. Even grant of sanction under Section
215 of the BNSS has been challenged to be opposed to
principle of law. As regards the lodging of FIR, the same has
caused no prejudice to the accused. There are no allegations
that FIR contents have been manipulated and the incident as
narrated in the FIR as well as police report stands proved by
documentary and other ocular evidence.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 66 of 80
44. The defence stated that there is contradiction in the
testimonies of PW4, PW6 and PW11, wherein PW4/
complainant states that he typed the complaint in a computer,
then PW11/ Investigating Officer states that she received the
complaint in soft copy from PW4/ complainant, which she
used to print from her computer. PW6/ Duty Officer then
stated that he received typed copy of complaint from PW11/
IO. When the whole sequence as narrated and highlighted by
the defense is seen, no inconsistency could be noticed, it
rather points out to a natural course. There is no law
barring filing of a written complaint, since
PW4/complainant is a police officer, he chose to submit a
soft copy of the complaint to the IO/ PW11, who also made
relevant entry for receiving the said complaint in typed form
and once the print was taken, the complaint was signed and
PW11/ IO took the same to the Duty Officer. This Court
could not find fault with any of the steps followed by the
witnesses especially, when there are no allegations of
manipulation or exaggeration in the complaint. The FIR
records the correct sequence of events, which the
prosecution has already proved from the documentary and
ocular evidence.
45. The other defence is that the original complaint is filed
without certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA. Section
63(4) of the BSA requires certificate qua ‘computer output’,
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 67 of 80
however, the present case is not where a computer output has
been used. The present case is one where first information
(which formed basis of the FIR) was typed instead of hand
written. PW4 deposed that he knew typing and he used a
computer to type the complaint and he took the same in a
soft copy to PW11/IO, who endorsed the same in a soft copy
and same was then handed over to PW6/ Duty Officer.
PW11/IO had actually printed the complaint and
endorsement, and physical signatures were put upon by the
complainant/PW4 as well as the IO/PW11. This would not
require any certificate under Section 63(4) of BSA. It is a
routine affair to type a document, instead of writing it by
hand, and once print is taken, physical signatures are
appended. As long as the signatory testifies that the typed
complaint duly signed by him is the true and correct record
of what he typed, the document could not be said to be faulty.
Further, the said defence does not merit acceptance as it is a
settled law that an FIR or an initial complaint is not a
substantive piece of evidence. Its primary object is merely to
set the criminal law in motion. Therefore, any alleged defect
or lack of certificate under Section 63(4) of BSA or any
discrepancy as allegedly shown in the initial complaint by
the defence, cannot by itself vitiate the prosecution case.
Relevant here is to mention that the present case does not
solely rests upon the initial complaint as during investigation
witnesses were examined who supported the prosecution
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 68 of 80
story and documentary evidence in the form of video
recordings has been correctly placed on record. The
evidentiary foundation of the prosecution is thus, based on
substantive material gathered during the investigation and
not merely upon the complaint Ex.PW4/A. In light of the
above, this Court is of the view that unless prejudice or
miscarriage of justice is demonstrated, irregularities with
respect to the complaint Ex.PW4/A cannot demolish an
otherwise sustainable prosecution case. Merely by pointing
out contradiction in the testimonies of PW4, PW6 and PW11
and without showing any prejudice to the accused, the case
of the prosecution stands firm. The defence even put various
suggestions to the witnesses that the present case was a result
of deliberate, false and manipulated effort at the instance of
senior police officials, however, the said suggestions are
nothing but futile and failed efforts. Except for the baseless
and bald suggestions, no positive evidence or material has
been proved on record by the defence.
46. Thus, both the judgments, relied upon by the defence I.e,
Anvar P.V. case (Supra) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar case
(Supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present
case. Ex.PW4/A is not a computer output, but computer has
only been used as a typing tool to prepare the complaint and
endorsement of the IO. Both the above were then printed and
the original Ex.PW4/A is on record.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 69 of 80
47. The other defence of the accused has been of invalid
sanction under Section 215 of the BNSS. The defence has
argued that PW5 ACP Ajay Kumar Gupta, stated that all the
documents were considered by him when he accorded
sanction Ex.PW5/C, yet he failed to explain as to why the
said sanction failed to record all the sections under which the
chargesheet/police report was proposed. The defence further
argues that, when Ex.PW5/D was accorded, there was no
new grounds/evidence/fact before PW5 to have accorded a
second sanction. The defence has also relied upon citation to
bring home the said argument. Before proceeding to discuss
the said defence on merits, this Court deems it fit to point
out that vide Order dated 20.08.2025, order on cognizance
was passed in the present matter, which was duly considered
and dealt with in revision petition preferred before the Ld.
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-09 (MP/MLA Cases). Vide
Order dated 06.02.2026 it was observed by the Ld. Special
Judge that “the law does not prohibit a chargesheet in
absence of a complaint under Section 215 of the BNSS. The
law only requires that such a complaint must exists before
cognizance is taken”. The said observation was passed by
Ld. Special Court while dealing with the revision of the
accused against the order framing notice of accusation.
Meaning thereby, the order of cognizance on basis of the
second sanction as well as the further order of framing of
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 70 of 80
notice of accusation, have attained finality as the order of
Ld. Special Judge, has not been challenged before the
Hon’ble High Court, as per the record available. It was for
the accused to challenge the order on the point of cognizance
at the initial stage, however, accused failed to do so
rendering herself to risk of further prosecution.
48. Even otherwise, the facts of the present case depict a
different scenario, wherein, Ex.PW5/D records that “…In
this case earlier vide no. 2314/SO/ACP/Pt Street dated
14.04.2025, a complaint under Section 215 of the BNSS for
taking cognizance for the offence under Section 223(a) of
the BNS against the accused was given but inadvertently
complaint for taking cognizance for the offence under
Section 221 of the BNS was not given”. PW5 thus, in
Ex.PW5/D has explained that it was not a case of second
sanction, rather inadvertent error in Ex.PW5/C being
rectified and sanction Ex.PW5/D was correct in mentioning
all relevant sections under which police report was proposed.
49. Clearly, the present case is on a different pedestal. The
Sanction Order Ex.PW5/C carried an inadvertent mistake,
which was pointed out by the Court. Clarification was
sought from the concerned authority and accordingly,
Ex.PW5/D was issued, clarifying that inadvertently one
section for which police report was itself sufficient was not
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 71 of 80
mentioned. The error corrected was placed on record and
accordingly, the Court passed order on cognizance based on
correct sanction. Even notice of accusation was framed and
no such ground was taken before the final stage of trial. No
prejudice has been caused to the accused during the trial due
to the aforesaid inadvertent error in sanction Ex.PW5/C.
Nevertheless, Ex.PW5/D is due sanction mentioning all the
Sections for which police report was filed. Valid cognizance
order as well as notice of accusation has been framed since
then and even the accused has been granted ample
opportunity to place their case and defence. This Court thus,
finds no merit in arguments of the defense that sanction
Ex.PW5/D is invalid.
50. This Court has carefully scrutinized all the judgments relied
upon by the defence to support its arguments. The judgments
as mentioned in paragraph no 25 and 26 above are clearly
distinguishable. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, when the chargesheet was pending consideration on
cognizance, certain missing fact in Ex.PW5/C were noted by
this Court and clarification was sought. In such clarification,
the IO sought to carry out further investigation, and there,
thus, was an implied permission by this Court to carry out
further investigation. When the supplementary chargesheet
was filed, this Court considered both the police reports as
well as considered inadvertent error in Ex.PW5/C, for which
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 72 of 80
Ex.PW5/D was placed on record. This Court then took
cognizance of police reports and proceeded to inquire,
following which orders on framing notice of accusation was
passed. The said Order was challenged unsuccessfully by the
accused and even the Ld. Special Court has upheld the
cognizance as well the Order on the point of charge.
51. The defence, thus is not meritorious, that cognizance was
taken without valid sanction since second sanction was
given after further investigation was undertaken by the
police. This Court found that Ex.PW5/C had not stated all
sections under which police report was filed and even some
witnesses were not found to have been examined. Vide
supplementary chargesheet, the IO examined some
witnesses and vide Ex.PW5/D inadvertent error in
Ex.PW5/C was acknowledged. The cognizance was thus
taken on the police report and especially Ex.PW5/D was
considered. There is neither a case of missing complaint
under Section 215 of the BNSS before cognizance was taken
or further investigation without Orders of the Court. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vinubhai Haribhai
Malaviya & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr, 2019 INSC
1146 held the scope and extent of further investigation
before the stage of trial. The same holds valid in the present
facts and circumstances, where the IO carried out
investigation before this Court passed Order on cognizance.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 73 of 80
Other factual defense
52. Some of the other defenses argued before this Court are that
prosecution has failed to show as to what number of
barricades were erected by the police. Defense argued that
the prosecution witnesses differed in deposing, as to if 2 or
3 barricades had been installed. PW4 deposed that three
barricades were there – one towards the Church Road and
two layers towards the Tolstoy Road. The videos in Ex.P1
also show two layers of barricades present towards the
Tolstoy Road, however in the first layer, two rows of
barricades were tied together and then, in the second layer
only one row of barricades were erected. In such eventuality,
this Court finds that prosecution has already proved the
allegations from the documentary and ocular evidence, and
it is only a natural variation in the understanding of the
witnesses. This Court has already found that the place of
incident sees regular protests on daily basis and witnesses
deposed after about two years from the date of the incident
thus, to remember one particular protest in minute details is
not humanly possible.
53. The defence has also argued that none of the witnesses
actually deposed which barricade was crossed and actual
number of protesters who crossed the barricades have not
been deposed by any of the witnesses. This Court finds that
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 74 of 80
the investigation is lacking in identifying all the protesters
who violated the prohibitory Order, pushed the police
officers and blocked a public road. However, such
shortcomings in the investigation, would not absolve the
accused of her wrongdoings. This Court cannot fault the
investigation qua the accused herein, pertinently when she
took a lead in the dharna/demonstration and even found
pivotal place in the posters at the venue and was addressed
as National President of All India Women Congress, which
had organized the dharna/demonstration.
54. The final defence is that broad timeline has not been given
by any of the witnesses as to the incident and there is no
witness who alleged that he/she was pushed. This Court at
the cost of repetition, reiterates that Ex.P1 is sufficient to
bring home all the charges against the accused, this
documentary evidence is backed by ocular evidence of
witnesses PW9 and PW10. The videos show that there was
physical force used from the point the accused jumped the
first layer of barricade over the human chain formed by the
police officials to hold the barricades. The accused with
other protesters could clearly be seen to have pushed the
human chain all the way to the second layer of barricade and
then lying on the road. There is no requirement of proving
exact time of these events in light of the admission of the
accused in her statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, that
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 75 of 80
she was present at the site of protest. Even if the incident
alleged occurred within the time allotted for protests, the
protesters and particularly, the accused was not allowed to
cross the first barricade. The videos would show that
announcements were made by senior police officials using
loud hailers that the timings allotted for the protest were over
and the gathering had been declared illegal when the
protesters and the accused climbed the first layer of
barricades. Even the witnesses have deposed the alleged
incident occurred post 1 PM, which was the maximum time
by which the protest was to end as per undertaking
Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H. Again, at the cost of repetition,
it is reiterated that the place of incident is a regular protest
area and police officers who see regular protests at the site
cannot be faulted for not remembering every minute details
of one particular protest, when being examined after two
years of the incident. Be that as it may, at least some defence
evidence ought to have been forthcoming to bring home all
the suggestions and defences put to the witnesses by the
defence side.
Fundamental Right to Protest viz-a-viz Fundamental Duties
55. Finally, it is argued that the Article 19 of the Constitution of
India covers the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech
and expression coupled with right to assemble peacefully
and without arms. It is argued that the accused was
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 76 of 80
peacefully protesting against non-implementation of the
103th Constitutional Amendment Act, which was a symbolic
act protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of
the Constitution. It goes without saying that in every Right
there is a corresponding Duty. This Court would mention
Article 51A of the Constitution of India, wherein it is stated
that it is duty of every citizen to safeguard public property
and abjure violence. The accused, being a responsible
citizen, was duty bound and excepted to ensure public order
at the time of holding protest at the site. However, the
accused miserably failed to fulfill the corresponding duty
and paid no heed to warning given to her by the police
officials declaring her protest as unlawful. The accused
when claiming Freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and Article
19(1)b), failed to read the reasonable restriction on this right
contained in Article 19(2) and Article 19(3). The blatant
failure to adhere to the undertakings Ex.PW11/G and
Ex.PW11/H as well as giving a deaf ear to the warnings
clearly given on the loud hailers by the senior police officer,
speak volumes about the conduct of the accused. The
warnings even contained caution that climbing barricades
could hurt the accused and protesters as well as the police
officials present at the protest site. Even these cautions fell
on deaf ears. Accordingly, this defence too, would not help
the case of the accused and cannot absolve her from
consequences of her act.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 77 of 80
Conclusion
56.From the documentary evidence and deposition of the
witnesses as well as the other material on record, this Court
has no hitch in saying that the accused is liable to be
convicted of all the four offences she is charged with. The
following table shall sum up the case of the prosecution, as
the actus reus as well as mens rea to commit each of the four
offences in question has successfully been proved beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused Ms. Alka Lamba. The
table is as under –
Section/ Act Actus Reus Mens Rea
132 BNS - The accused alongwith The accused clearly
Assault or other protesters used intended to prevent
criminal force criminal force against and deter the police
to deter public the police officials, officials present
servant from when the accused from discharging
discharge of his jumped the barricade their duty as such
duty. over the human chain public servant, when
of police officials as they tried to hold the
well as pushed the accused and the
police officials, ran protesters within the
towards the second protest area.
barricade. No physical injury is
Again, criminal force strictly required,
was used by the intentional causing
accused to push the of motion or change
police officials while of motion to deter a
she jumped the second public servant would
barricade. be sufficient.
221 BNS – The accused obstructed The said act was
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 78 of 80
Voluntarily the police officials committed
obstructing from discharging their voluntarily as she
public servant public function i.e. intended the protest
in discharge of maintaining law and to exceed the time
his public order at the Jantar frame and also
function. Mantar Protest Area intended to carry
and to hold the protest dharna/
within the exempted demonstration
area. beyond the
exempted area.
223(a) BNS- The accused clearly The promulgation
Disobedience to disobeyed the order was in the
known Order promulgated Order knowledge of the
duly Ex.PW5/A by jumping accused as well as
promulgated by the barricades causing the other protesters.
public servant, annoyance to the police A clear undertaking
thereby causing officials and with risk Ex.PW11/G and
obstruction, of injury to herself, Ex.PW11/H are on
annoyance or other protesters and record by the
injury, or risk of police officials. organizers i.e. All
above three The accused pushed the India Women
police officials, lied on Congress of which
the road causing the accused is
annoyance to the police National President
officials, general
public, with risk of
injury to all present at
the spot, beyond the
exempted area.
285 BNS - The accused lied on the No mental element
Danger/ asphalt road in between is required, and the
obstruction in the first and second act is sufficient
the public way barricade. The said when it caused
area was public way danger, obstruction
wherein, general or injury to any
public, police officials person in public
and media persons had way.
FIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 79 of 80
right of way. The
accused lied on the
road for extended time
despite clear
announcement to
vacate.
57. Keeping in view the above discussion, accused Alka Lamba,
stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section
132/221/223(a)/285 of the BNS.
Digitally
signed by
Ashwani
Ashwani Panwar
Panwar Date:
2026.05.25
16:40:56
Announced in open court +0530on 25.05.2026 (ASHWANI PANWAR)
ACJM-04, RADC, New DelhiFIR No.80/2024; PS Parliament Street; Cr.C.No.14/2025
State Vs. Alka Lamba. Page : 80 of 80
