A Delhi court has held that Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib is entitled to a copy of the first information report filed against him over a shirtless protest at the AI Impact Summit, observing that the allegations do not carry the “hallmarks of terrorism or insurgency”.The order came amid a political stand-off over the manner in which Delhi Police invoked penal provisions following the demonstration at the summit venue earlier this month. Chib, who heads the Indian Youth Congress, had approached the court seeking access to the FIR, arguing that denial of the document curtailed his right to defend himself.
While directing that a copy be furnished, the court noted that the facts placed before it did not suggest offences of a nature that would justify extraordinary restrictions. The judge remarked that the material on record, as described during proceedings, lacked indicators typically associated with terrorism-related cases, a formulation that could influence the trajectory of the investigation.
Delhi Police had booked Chib after he staged a protest at the AI Impact Summit, an event attended by senior government representatives and industry leaders to discuss artificial intelligence policy and investment. Visuals circulating on social media showed Chib removing his shirt and raising slogans inside the venue, drawing swift intervention by security personnel. Police later cited sections relating to unlawful assembly and breach of peace, and officials indicated that the protest had disrupted a high-profile gathering.
Counsel for Chib contended that the protest was symbolic and aimed at highlighting concerns over youth unemployment and what the party describes as policy failures in the technology sector. They argued before the court that branding the act in a manner suggestive of threats to national security would be disproportionate. The defence maintained that access to the FIR is a statutory right, particularly where no exceptional bar applies.
The prosecution, representing Delhi Police, submitted that the case was under active investigation and that certain procedural safeguards were being followed due to the sensitive nature of the summit. However, the court underscored that investigative discretion must operate within the framework of established legal protections.
Legal experts say the court’s emphasis on the absence of “hallmarks of terrorism or insurgency” is significant, given the heightened scrutiny around protests at events linked to strategic sectors such as artificial intelligence. Over the past two years, AI-focused conferences have drawn political attention, reflecting the government’s push to position the country as a global technology hub. At the same time, opposition parties have sought to leverage such platforms to question policy priorities and social impact.
The AI Impact Summit was promoted as a forum to discuss regulatory frameworks, data governance and innovation funding. Officials have repeatedly stated that artificial intelligence will underpin future economic growth, with ministries outlining plans for public–private partnerships and research support. Youth organisations aligned with opposition parties have argued that headline investments must translate into job creation and accessible training opportunities.
Within this context, the protest assumed a broader political dimension. Congress leaders described the police action as heavy-handed, asserting that peaceful dissent cannot be equated with threats to public order. Leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party countered that security protocols at international summits cannot be compromised and that demonstrators must respect lawful boundaries.
The court’s order does not adjudicate on the merits of the charges but clarifies procedural entitlements at an early stage. Under criminal procedure, an accused person is ordinarily entitled to a copy of the FIR unless specific statutory exceptions apply. Courts have, in previous rulings, reiterated that transparency in the initial stages of prosecution is integral to fair trial rights.
Senior advocates tracking the case say the reasoning may temper attempts to characterise protest actions in sweeping security terms. They caution, however, that the investigation will continue and that police retain authority to examine whether any additional offences are made out based on evidence.
Chib has stated through party channels that he will cooperate with the inquiry. He has framed the episode as part of a larger debate on youth representation in policy forums and accused authorities of attempting to deter dissent. Delhi Police officials have not publicly elaborated on the evidence collected so far, beyond confirming that the matter remains under investigation.