Parliament Security Breach: Police Allege Plot to Revive 2001 Attack Memories, Oppose Bail Amid Concerns of Politicized Narrative
New Delhi: In a dramatic development surrounding the December 13, 2023, security breach at the Indian Parliament, the Delhi Police have asserted that the accused, including 28-year-old activist Neelam Azad, aimed to evoke the traumatic memories of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. The police made this submission to the Delhi High Court while opposing Azad’s bail plea, alleging a calculated attempt to “terrorize the nation” and challenge the authority of the Indian state.
However, the claim — that activists deliberately timed their actions to coincide with the anniversary of the 2001 attack — has sparked critical debate over the extent of the threat, the state’s reaction, and the deeper questions about dissent and state surveillance.
A “Sinister Plot” or Political Protest?
According to the police’s official reply filed before Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, the breach was “premeditated” and aimed at disrupting Parliament during a symbolic moment of mourning. The police alleged that accused Manoranjan D and his associates had been planning the act since 2015, a sweeping claim that raises questions about intelligence lapses and the credibility of long-standing surveillance.
A key portion of the police submission quotes Azad’s recorded disclosure, allegedly citing Manoranjan as saying that what they planned to do in the new Parliament building would “bring back haunted memories” of the old Parliament — an allusion, the police say, to the deadly December 2001 attack.
Yet, no weapons or explosives were recovered from Azad. In fact, her counsel argued in court that she was not inside Parliament during the incident and merely protested outside, where she sprayed colored gas while shouting slogans against tyranny “tanashahi nahi chalegi.”
Despite this, the police continue to treat the event as an attempted terror act rather than civil disobedience, equating symbolic protests with threats to national security.
Patriotism, Appropriated and Questioned
In a further attempt to frame the accused, the police stated that references to national icons like Bhagat Singh and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in their digital communication were “a ploy to arrogate patriotism.” According to investigators, the accused had only a “perfunctory understanding” of these freedom fighters a strange and subjective basis to question intent in a court of law.
Critics argue this reasoning borders on ideological profiling and conflates anti-government protest with anti-national activity.
“This line of argument is deeply problematic,” said human rights lawyer Asha Menon. “Using slogans or symbols from India’s independence movement does not amount to deception or disloyalty — unless dissent itself is criminalized.”
Legal Complications and Delay Tactics
The police also sought dismissal of Azad’s bail plea on technical grounds, citing a 142-day delay in appealing the September 11, 2024 trial court order that denied her bail. According to the prosecution, this exceeds the 90-day deadline under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, making the petition “legally void.”
Azad’s lawyer countered this claim by highlighting her socioeconomic background, stating she hails from a poor family with no means to travel to Delhi or hire legal representation in time. This argument sheds light on the broader access-to-justice gap in India’s legal system, where the poor face systemic disadvantages in defending themselves against the state.
Chilling Echoes or Overblown Response?
The December breach did trigger panic in Parliament, with two individuals — Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D — jumping into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, releasing yellow smoke and shouting slogans. Simultaneously, Azad and Amol Dhanraj Shinde performed a similar act outside Parliament.
Although the coordinated protest raised alarms and embarrassed security forces, no actual physical harm was reported. Still, the prosecution has described the offence as “grave,” arguing it undermined the sovereignty and integrity of the Indian state.
The trial court previously ruled that Azad and her co-accused had knowledge of designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu’s threat to attack Parliament on the same day — a claim being used to reinforce the narrative of a larger conspiracy.
Critical Questions Remain
While the authorities continue to press for stringent action, civil society groups warn of the growing tendency to criminalize protest in the name of national security. The police’s narrative suggests a deliberate attempt to blur the lines between dissent, disruption, and terrorism — a tactic that, if unchecked, could have lasting consequences for democratic rights in India.
“There is a difference between security breaches and ideological dissent,” said journalist and political analyst Sunil Varma. “Equating protest with terrorism sets a dangerous precedent, and courts must ensure that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.”
As the High Court resumes hearing on Azad’s bail plea, the outcome could shape not just her future, but the contours of lawful protest in an increasingly securitized democracy.
Reference