The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against a Staff Selection Commission (SSC) aspirant booked in connection with a protest at Ramlila Maidan, observing that mere participation in a demonstration does not establish a common intention to disobey police orders or obstruct police personnel. 

Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the petitioner could not be prosecuted without material showing that he knowingly participated in the alleged disobedience or shared a common intention to commit the offence. 

The case arose from a protest held at Ramlila Maidan in August 2025 by SSC aspirants over alleged irregularities in the conduct of the commission’s examination. 

According to the prosecution, some organisers refused to call off the demonstration after the permitted time had expired and instigated protesters to remain at the venue until their demands were met. 

The Delhi police subsequently registered an FIR alleging that some protesters had violated prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by continuing to occupy the ground. The police also alleged that some protesters pushed and scuffled with police personnel. 

The court, however, noted that neither the FIR nor the subsequent status report attributed any specific criminal act to the petitioner. His presence among the protesters, without material indicating a common intention to commit an offence, was insufficient to make out a case under Section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant. 

“The petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters, in the absence of material indicating his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or any common intention to commit the offence. The continuation of the proceedings against him, in these circumstances, would serve no worthwhile purpose,” the court said in its October 13 order. 

“Mere participation in the same demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel. The material on record does not disclose any basis for attributing such common intention to the petitioner,” it held.