A Delhi court has held that the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) workers’ shirtless protest during the India AI Impact Summit crossed the limits of legitimate dissent. The court said the act hurt India’s diplomatic image in front of foreign stakeholders.
The protest took place on February 20 at Bharat Mandapam, during the summit.
What Happened at Bharat Mandapam
According to the police, several IYC activists entered the venue during the event. Some allegedly removed their shirts and displayed T-shirts carrying slogans such as “PM is compromised” and criticism of the India–US trade deal. They also raised slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and government policies.
Delhi Police Arrests Four IYC Workers
After the incident, Delhi Police arrested four IYC workers:
- Krishna Hari
- Kundan Yadav
- Ajay Kumar
- Narasimha Yadav
The police alleged that the accused breached event security and raised “anti-national” slogans.
Court Order on Police Custody
Judicial Magistrate First Class Ravi of the Patiala House Courts passed the order on February 21. The court remanded the accused to five days’ Delhi Police custody and rejected their bail pleas.
What the Court Recorded in the Remand Order
In the remand order, the court noted that the accused allegedly planned and carried out a premeditated intrusion into a high-security venue. It recorded that they wore “provocative” T-shirts with offensive slogans, including “India US Trade Deal Compromised.”
The court also recorded allegations that they:
- raised “incendiary” slogans,
- disrupted the summit, and
- obstructed public servants while they performed their duties.
The order further noted allegations of physical assault, which reportedly caused grievous injuries to police personnel.
Why the Court Refused Bail
The court said the alleged conduct “goes beyond legitimate dissent” and amounts to a serious breach of public order. It held that the incident affected the sanctity of the event and damaged the Republic’s diplomatic image before foreign stakeholders.
The court said these actions were “not protected by constitutional safeguards”.
While rejecting bail, the court also noted that the four accused come from different parts of the country. It added that the possibility of interference with evidence could not be ruled out.
