SC Examines High Court Order Quashing Case Against Bhagwant Mann & Other AAP Leaders

SC Examines High Court Order Quashing Case Against Bhagwant Mann & Other AAP Leaders

The case stems from a protest march organised in 2020 by Mann and other AAP leaders against an increase in electricity tariffs.

Vinay MishraUpdated: Thursday, July 30, 2026, 01:29 PM IST
SC Examines High Court Order Quashing Case Against Bhagwant Mann & Other AAP Leaders
Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann | X - ANI| File image

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a notice to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, seeking his response to an appeal filed by the Chandigarh administration. The administration has challenged a Punjab and Haryana High Court order quashing a case of rioting and unlawful assembly against Mann and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan took up the matter and agreed to examine the case, Bar and Bench reported.

Appearing for the Chandigarh administration, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the reasoning adopted by the High Court was "perverse".

"We will examine it. Issue notice," the Bench said.

The case stems from a protest march organised in 2020 by Mann and other AAP leaders against an increase in electricity tariffs. The protesters had planned to march towards the residence of the then Punjab chief minister but were allegedly stopped by the police using water cannons, following which stones were reportedly thrown at police personnel.

On November 29, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the criminal proceedings. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed that the police had no valid reason to stop the protesters, as no prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were in force at the time.

The High Court also noted that none of the individuals allegedly involved in the stone-pelting incident had been identified and that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners had encouraged or directed anyone to engage in violence.

The court further observed that no specific words, actions or gestures had been attributed to the accused to establish incitement. Consequently, it held that there was insufficient material to link the petitioners to the alleged offences and ruled that charges related to rioting and assaulting police personnel could not be sustained.