New Delhi: Two law students from Lucknow University have been arrested for allegedly disrupting proceedings inside the Supreme Court during a hearing last week, according to Delhi Police.
The incident occurred 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. An FIR was subsequently registered at Tilak Marg Police Station based on a complaint filed by Supreme Court security personnel.
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 enrolled at Lucknow University.
According to the FIR, Prabal Pratap, who was appearing as a petitioner-in-person, allegedly disrupted the proceedings by using abusive and unparliamentary language, throwing papers inside the courtroom, and creating disorder. The complaint further alleges that he resisted security personnel when they attempted to restore order, using force against a staff member and obstructing the discharge of official duties.
The matter was being heard by a bench comprising Justices K. V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe. During the hearing, Prabal Pratap reportedly demanded the registration of an FIR against the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, and addressed the bench in an inappropriate manner.
After Justice Viswanathan questioned his conduct, the petitioner allegedly waved a 185-page compilation of documents relating to allegations against Duplex Technologies before throwing the papers into the air, scattering them across the courtroom. He is also accused of using abusive language directed at the Chief Justice of India, following which security personnel escorted him out of the courtroom.
Although the incident could potentially attract proceedings for criminal contempt of court, the bench did not initiate contempt action during the hearing. Instead, it proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the bench observed that it had examined the record and found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment or order, resulting in the petition being rejected.
