Tensions spilt into the courtroom on Saturday after the Delhi Police alleged that a group of Indian Youth Congress (IYC) workers staged a protest at the AI Impact Summit in a bid to “defame the country internationally”. Seeking five days’ custody of the accused, police told a Delhi court that the demonstration bore similarities to a protest carried out in Nepal.
Four IYC members, namely Krishna Hari, Kundan Yadav, Ajay Kumar and Narasimha Yadav, were produced before the Patiala House Court a day after they were detained at Bharat Mandapam. The arrests stem from a dramatic protest inside the high-profile summit venue on Friday.
Police Cite ‘Deep Conspiracy’
According to officials, the accused walked through the exhibition hall at the AI Impact Summit holding up T-shirts printed with slogans critical of the government and the India-US trade deal. Security personnel swiftly removed them from the venue as delegates and international representatives looked on.
In court, the prosecution argued that the demonstration went beyond ordinary dissent. The public prosecutor claimed the group raised “anti-national slogans” while wearing T-shirts bearing messages against the prime minister, adding that the act occurred in the presence of global leaders and prominent figures.
Delhi Police contended that the incident was not spontaneous. Investigators described it as part of a “deep conspiracy”, asserting that the protest aimed to tarnish India’s image on an international platform. They told the court that four individuals from separate locations coordinated their actions and printed the T-shirts in advance.
Seeking five days’ custody, police said further interrogation was necessary to trace other suspects who allegedly fled the scene. They also cited injuries to three police personnel and emphasised the need to recover the accused’s mobile phones to determine whether any external funding was involved.
When the court questioned the need for extended custody, the investigating officer reiterated that additional arrests could follow and that custodial interrogation was essential for a thorough probe.
Defence Alleges Political Targeting
The defence, however, painted a starkly different picture. Counsel for the accused argued that the protest was peaceful and fell squarely within their constitutional right to dissent. “There is no video evidence of violence,” the lawyer submitted, adding that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of up to seven years.
The defence further described the FIR as politically motivated and insisted that the accused, whom he described as educated and career-oriented young individuals, were being targeted because of their association with an opposition party. He also alleged that they had been severely beaten following their detention.
“They are young, they have careers, and political dissent should not be crushed like this,” the lawyer argued while moving bail applications. “There must be a clear reason for custody.”
