Delhi court discharges UK national Gaba over attacks at Indian High Commission in London; frames UAPA charges

The court reached a split decision. It said video recordings showed Gaba standing on the Indian national flag during the March 22, 2023 protest. However, it discharged him under section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, because that law could not be used for conduct allegedly committed in London.

The court still found sufficient grounds under section 13(1) of the UAPA. It treated his alleged participation in a protest where pro-Khalistan slogans were raised, along with his standing on the flag, as falling within “unlawful activity” under the anti-terror law.

This means the case continues, but on a different legal foundation. Gaba’s lawyer, Arun Khatri, said the defence would challenge the order in the high court. The ruling therefore separates the location-based flag offence from the broader UAPA allegation.

The investigation covered two incidents outside the Indian High Commission in London. They occurred on March 19 and March 22, 2023, and were described as violent protests involving a group of demonstrators.

According to the article, protesters pulled down the Indian flag and attempted to hoist a Khalistani flag. They were also accused of assaulting security personnel. The NIA linked the incidents and alleged that Britain-based Sikh radical Avtar Singh Khanda led them.

The agency said the protests were retaliation for Punjab police action against Waris Punjab De chief Amritpal Singh and his associates. Gaba was alleged to have participated in the March 22 protest. He was later arrested at the Attari border on April 25, 2024. The court’s order addressed his alleged conduct during that London event.

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, is an Indian law protecting national honour. In the reported case, the relevant conduct concerned alleged disrespect toward the Indian national flag. The court said section 2 covered the act shown in recordings, but it could not try Gaba under that law because the incident occurred abroad.

The concrete allegation was that Gaba stood on the Indian flag while it was lying on the ground during the March 22 protest in London. The court said it was satisfied from video recordings that this amounted to an offence under section 2.

The important limitation was jurisdiction, not the court’s view of the recorded conduct. The judge discharged Gaba from this charge because the 1971 law had no extra-territorial jurisdiction, while separately allowing a UAPA charge to proceed. The defence plans to challenge the order.

The court’s reasoning focused on territory. It held that the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, did not extend beyond India’s territory. Since Gaba allegedly stood on the Indian flag in London, the court said he could not be tried under that statute in the Delhi case.

This conclusion did not mean the court rejected the evidence. The order said video recordings satisfied the court that Gaba had stood on the flag lying on the ground, which would have constituted an offence under section 2 if the law could be applied.

The distinction matters because criminal laws often depend on where conduct occurs. Here, the court discharged Gaba from the flag-insult charge but found grounds under UAPA section 13(1). His lawyer said the defence would challenge the ruling in the high court, so the legal dispute may continue.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, is India’s anti-terror law. Section 13(1), cited in this case, concerns promoting or participating in unlawful activities. The court considered whether Gaba’s alleged conduct during the London protest met that threshold.

The court focused on two alleged elements. Gaba was said to have participated in the March 22 protest, where pro-Khalistan slogans were raised. Video recordings also allegedly showed him standing on the Indian flag after it had fallen to the ground. The court held that these circumstances fell within “unlawful activity” under the UAPA.

That finding allowed the prosecution to proceed even though the separate flag-insult statute could not be applied abroad. The court therefore ordered charges under section 13(1), while Gaba’s lawyer rejected the case and said the order would be challenged in the high court.

When a court frames charges, it formally identifies the allegations the accused must face at trial. The judge is deciding whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed, not whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

In Gaba’s case, the Delhi court found sufficient grounds to charge him under section 13(1) of the UAPA. It relied on the alleged protest participation, pro-Khalistan slogans, and video recordings that allegedly showed him standing on the Indian flag. That decision keeps the UAPA case alive.

It is different from conviction. Gaba has not been found guilty of the UAPA allegation in the reported order. The court separately discharged him from the flag-insult charge because the law did not apply to the alleged act in London. His lawyer said the defence would challenge the order in the high court.

A country’s criminal jurisdiction usually begins with conduct inside its territory. However, some laws expressly apply beyond national borders, or courts may rely on connections such as the accused’s nationality, victims, national security, or effects felt in the country. The exact rule depends on the statute and legal system.

The article gives a clear contrast. The Delhi court said the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, had no extra-territorial jurisdiction, so it could not try Gaba for allegedly standing on India’s flag in London. Yet it found grounds under UAPA section 13(1), treating the alleged protest conduct as unlawful activity under that anti-terror law.

This does not automatically prove that every overseas act can be prosecuted in India. It shows that courts must examine each law’s wording and territorial reach. Gaba’s planned high-court challenge may test that reasoning further.