On Friday, the Delhi High Court intervened to suspend the trial court's directive instructing the Delhi Police to furnish a copy of the FIR to the accused, Neelam Azad, in connection with the Parliament security breach case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, issued a stay on the trial court order and issued a notice to the accused, scheduling a hearing for January 4, 2024.

During the proceedings, the counsel representing the Delhi Police argued that, in accordance with legal provisions and Supreme Court directives, in sensitive cases, the accused is required to first approach the Commissioner of Police. This Commissioner-led committee assesses whether the FIR should be provided to the accused. The counsel emphasized that only if the committee deems it inappropriate can the accused then seek recourse in the court.

The matter was urgently presented before the bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna by the police's legal representative. The counsel informed the court about the arrest of four individuals in connection with the case. In situations where the FIR is not provided due to sensitivity and ongoing investigations, the accused must approach the Commissioner, the counsel explained. However, the trial court had directed the police to supply a copy of the FIR, contrary to this procedure.

It is noteworthy that on December 21, a Delhi court, under the jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur at Patiala House, had mandated the Delhi Police to furnish accused Neelam Azad with a copy of the FIR related to the Parliament security breach case. Despite objections from Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, the court issued the order.

The Delhi Police had argued that the FIR was sealed due to the sensitive nature of the case and ongoing investigations, with some accused still evading capture. Singh underscored the critical nature of preserving information at this stage, expressing concerns that any leaks could potentially impact the ongoing investigation.

In response, Neelam Azad's legal representative, Advocate Suresh Kumar Chaudhary, contended that providing the FIR to the accused's family and lawyer is a constitutional right.

Despite the opposition, the court granted Azad's plea for a copy of the FIR. Additionally, Azad's request for the court to direct Delhi Police to allow her to meet with her lawyer was accepted.

ASJ Kaur asserted that Azad is entitled to legal assistance even in police custody and stipulated that she can meet her lawyer every alternate day for 15 minutes.

Neelam Azad, along with three other accused—Sagar Sharma, Manoranjan D, and Amol Shinde—were arrested by Delhi Police on December 13. Sharma and Manoranjan D had entered the Lok Sabha chamber with canisters emitting smoke during a protest outside the parliament building. As their initial custody period ended, the court granted an extension of 15 days to Delhi Police for their remand.

Case: State v. Neelam Azad.