The Chandigarh Administration has escalated a legal battle to the Supreme Court, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to dismiss charges of rioting and unlawful assembly against Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders. A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipin Pancholi, has agreed to hear the appeal.
The legal representation for the Union Territory of Chandigarh includes Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. Mehta highlighted the necessity to include additional respondents in the plea, as they too had received relief from the High Court concerning the same matter last year. “We will list it. Impleadment to be filed,” remarked the Court.
The original case stemmed from a 2020 incident where Mann and others led a protest march in Chandigarh opposing an increase in electricity tariffs. Their demonstration aimed to approach the then Punjab Chief Minister’s residence but was met with a police barricade and a water cannon. This confrontation allegedly resulted in stone-pelting by protestors.
On November 29, 2025, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the High Court quashed the FIR against Mann and the AAP leaders. The Court found that the police had no grounds to halt the protest as there was no prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The judgment noted, “Nobody has been named from amongst the persons present who allegedly pelted stones on the police force. Besides, it is not the case that the petitioners asked them to do so.” The Court also observed that there was no evidence of the petitioners inciting such actions, nor were any specific provocative words or gestures attributed to them.
Justice Dahiya concluded that the alleged acts of stone-throwing could not be directly linked to the petitioners, and thus, accusations of rioting or assaulting police officers were unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the Court ruled that invoking charges of violence by unlawful assembly was inappropriate, given the absence of any prohibitory orders at the time.
More Read
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this appeal signifies a critical juncture in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding the rights to protest and the responsibilities of law enforcement in handling such events. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future protests and assemblies in the region.
