The Chandigarh Administration has approached the Supreme Court challenging a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that quashed an FIR registered against Bhagwant Mann and several leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party in connection with a 2020 protest case involving allegations of rioting and unlawful assembly.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipin Pancholi agreed to list the matter for hearing.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared on behalf of the Union Territory Administration.

During the hearing, Mehta informed the Court that additional respondents would need to be impleaded in the case since relief had also been granted to them by the High Court in related proceedings last year.

“We will list it. Impleadment to be filed,” the Bench observed.

The case stems from a protest march organised in 2020 by AAP leaders and workers against a hike in electricity tariffs. The protesters had planned to gherao the residence of the then Punjab Chief Minister in Chandigarh.

According to the prosecution, the protesters were stopped by police using water cannons, following which some persons in the crowd allegedly resorted to stone pelting at police personnel.

On November 29, 2025, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the FIR against Mann and other AAP leaders.

The High Court had observed that the police had no justification 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 Court further noted that no individual involved in the alleged stone pelting had been specifically identified and that there were no allegations showing that the petitioners had incited the crowd.

“Nobody has been named from amongst the persons present who allegedly pelted stones on the police force. Besides, it is not the case that the petitioners asked them to do so,” the High Court had observed.

It also pointed out that the prosecution failed to specify any words, gestures, or acts of instigation attributable to the accused leaders.

In view of these findings, the High Court held that the allegations of rioting, unlawful assembly, and assault on police personnel were not made out against the petitioners.

The Court additionally ruled that provisions relating to offences committed by an unlawful assembly could not be invoked in the absence of prohibitory orders in force at the protest site.