The case of breach in the security of Parliament has now reached the Supreme Court. A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court. In this petition, it has been demanded that the incident that took place in the Lok Sabha on 13 December 2023 should be investigated by a retired judge of the Supreme Court. This petition has been filed by Abu Sohail. Abu Sohail has said in the petition that the matter of breach in the security of Parliament is serious. Therefore, its investigation should be conducted in an independent, credible, impartial and judicial investigation.
In fact, on December 13, during Zero Hour in the Lok Sabha, two youths named Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan jumped from the audience gallery into the midst of the MPs. Both of them had hidden smoke bombs in their shoes. As soon as the MPs and security personnel caught them, they released the smoke bomb in the Parliament. At the same time, Amol Shinde and Neelam Singh were arrested outside the Parliament while raising anti-government slogans.
Police have arrested a total of six people including the alleged mastermind Lalit Jha in this case and registered a case under the Anti-Terrorism Act and started investigation. In this regard, the police has written a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking permission to interrogate the BJP MP who recommended issuing passes to Manoranjan and Sagar Sharma.
The Crime Branch of Delhi Police has searched Sagar Sharma’s house in Lucknow, Neelam Singh’s house in Haryana besides the houses of Manoranjan and Lalit Jha. According to police sources, objectionable things have been found from the houses of these people. This shows that attempts to breach the security of Parliament were being made since about 2 years ago.
The lawyers of Neelam, one of the accused in the breach in the security of the Parliament, filed an application in the Patiala House Court and asked for a copy of the FI, on which the prosecution lawyers said that this matter is related to the security of the Parliament of the country, hence the copy of the FIR was not made public.
