The accused have been identified as Prabal Pratap Singh (24), a third-year law student, and Chander Bhan (23), a second-year law student, both from Lucknow University.
NEW DELHI: Two law students from Lucknow University have been arrested in connection with last week’s disruption inside the Supreme Court, Delhi Police said on Tuesday.One of the accused allegedly used abusive language against the Chief Justice of India (CJI), threw papers inside the courtroom and disrupted judicial proceedings during a hearing before a Supreme Court bench.Delhi Police said an FIR was registered at Tilak Marg police station based on a complaint by Supreme Court security staff over the incident that took place on July 10 inside Court No. 13 during the hearing of SLP No. 31367/2026, Prabal Pratap & Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Commissioner.The accused have been identified as Prabal Pratap Singh (24), a third-year law student, and Chander Bhan (23), a second-year law student, both from Lucknow University.According to the FIR, Prabal Pratap, who was appearing as a petitioner-in-person, “intentionally disrupted the court proceedings by using abusive and unparliamentary language, throwing papers inside the courtroom and creating disorder”. It further alleged that when security staff attempted to restore order and restrain him, he used force against a staff member, obstructing the discharge of official duties. The disruption unfolded before a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe. Appearing alongside co-petitioner Chander Bhan, Pratap said: “Mr Judicial Servant, I order you to order registration of FIR against ACP, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.””You are ordering us?” Justice Viswanathan asked, after which Pratap continued waving a 185-page set of documents related to allegations against Duplex Technologies. He then threw the papers into the air, scattering them across the courtroom, before allegedly using a cuss word directed at the CJI, prompting security personnel to escort him out.Despite the incident amounting to alleged criminal contempt, the bench did not initiate contempt proceedings. Instead, it dismissed the special leave petition, observing: “As far as the merit of this case is concerned, we have perused the records, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgement/order(s). The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
