Neelam Azad, implicated in the Parliament security breach incident, has submitted a habeas corpus petition to the Delhi High Court, urging an immediate release from police custody.

In her plea, Azad challenges the legality of the trial court's December 21 order, which sanctioned her detention by the police. She asserts that she was denied the opportunity to consult her chosen legal representatives during the remand proceedings.

Azad claims that only after the remand application was resolved did the court inquire if she wished to be represented by her chosen advocate. She affirms responding affirmatively, leading to an order permitting her to consult with her chosen lawyer.

According to Azad, when initially presented before the court on December 14, after spending 29 hours in police custody, she was not allowed to consult her preferred advocate. Instead, an attorney affiliated with Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) present in the court was assigned, without providing information about the appointed counsel or offering any alternatives.

She argues that this denial of her preferred legal representation infringes upon her rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Azad was arrested by Delhi Police on December 13, along with three other individuals—Sagar Sharma, Manoranjan D, and Amol Shinde. Sharma and Manoranjan D breached the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors' gallery with smoke-emitting canisters, while Azad and Shinde were protesting outside the Parliament building.

On December 21, the trial court directed the Delhi Police to share the FIR copy with Azad's counsel, but this order was subsequently halted by the High Court on December 22.