NEW DELHI — A trial court in New Delhi has granted bail to two law students from Lucknow University arrested for disrupting proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, hurling unparliamentary language, and flinging case papers inside Court Room No. 13.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ravi of the Patiala House Courts granted bail to Prabal Pratap Singh (24), a third-year law student, and Chander Bhan (23), a second-year law student. In the order passed on July 27, 2026, the court strongly condemned their actions while ruling that the nature of the allegations did not warrant indefinite pre-trial incarceration once the investigation was substantially complete.
Background of the Incident
The incident occurred on July 10, 2026, during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition filed by Singh challenging an April 2026 judgment of the Allahabad High Court. Appearing as a petitioner-in-person before a Division Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe, Singh grew agitated during the proceedings, hurled expletives directed at the court and the office of the Chief Justice of India, flung case documents inside the courtroom, and created a commotion.
When apex court security staff intervened to maintain order, Singh allegedly used physical force to obstruct them from performing their official duties, while Bhan was accused of abetting his co-accused's conduct.
Following a complaint lodged by the Supreme Court security personnel, an FIR was registered at the Tilak Marg Police Station under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), 221 (obstructing public servant), and 224 (threat of injury to public servant). The duo was arrested on July 11, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody.
Court's Key Observations
While granting relief to the applicants, the magistrate court delivered sharp observations regarding courtroom decorum and the stature of the judicial system:
1. No License for Abusive Misconduct
The court made it clear that grievances do not give litigants the right to undermine judicial dignity:
"A litigant, howsoever aggrieved by the outcome of his cause or howsoever unrepresented, does not acquire licence to hurl papers in open court or direct abusive language at the presiding authority, much less at the office of the Chief Justice of India."
The bench emphasized that the office of the Chief Justice stands as the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights and liberties. Allowing such conduct to pass unremarked carries the risk of it being perceived as tacitly acceptable.
2. Institutional Restraint of the Apex Court
The court highlighted that the Supreme Court itself handled the situation with notable equanimity and did not seek contempt action against the agitators:
"An institution of the stature and permanence of the Supreme Court of India is not diminished by the intemperate conduct of a single agitated, unrepresented litigant. It is only appropriate that subordinate courts... be guided by the same institutional restraint and equanimity that the highest court itself has demonstrated."
3. Grounds for Granting Bail
Addressing the legal merits of the bail application, the court noted that the investigation was complete, key evidence and medical records were secured, and no further custodial interrogation was required.
The magistrate ruled that the gravity of the language used, however deprecable, could not convert non-heinous offences into grounds for prolonged pre-trial detention. Finding that both accused had verified addresses, roots in society, and no likelihood of tampering with official security witnesses, the court directed their release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Discription: A Delhi trial court granted bail to two Lucknow University law students, Prabal Pratap Singh and Chander Bhan, who were arrested for disrupting Supreme Court proceedings, hurling abusive language, and throwing case papers inside the courtroom. Judicial Magistrate First Class Ravi strongly condemned their behavior, emphasizing that grievances do not grant litigants a license to disrespect the judiciary or the Chief Justice of India. However, the court granted relief considering that the investigation was complete, the offences were non-heinous, and the Supreme Court itself had shown institutional restraint by not seeking contempt action. The judge cautioned the students to maintain dignity and restraint in future court appearances.