Rouse Avenue court rejects Alka Lamba's revision against framing of charges in protest case
Feb 06, 2026
New Delhi [India], February 6 : The Rouse Avenue court on Friday rejected Former MLA Alka Lamba's plea against the framing of charges in a case of alleged violation of a government order. This case pertains to a protest at Jantar Mantar in support of women's reservation in 2024, she had challenged the order framing of charges.
She is an accused in a case of alleged violation of the prohibitory order and deterring public servants from doing their duty.
Special Judge (MP-MLA) Dig Vinay Singh dismissed the revision moved by Alka Lamba, terming the order of charges as appropriate.
"As there is no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the present Revision Petition fails and is dismissed," Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh said on Friday.
While dismissing the revision, the court observed, "In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court has exercised its judicial mind to sift through the statements of eyewitnesses and the electronic evidence and has concluded that a prima facie case exists."
The standard for framing charges is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but "sufficient ground for proceeding," the court said.
The court also opined that the arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of injuries, and the nature of dissent are defences to be established during the trial and cannot be prejudged.
On January 14, the Rouse Avenue court formally framed charges against Alka Lamba. An FIR was registered against her in Parliament Street Police Station in 2024.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar had formally framed charges against Alka Lamba. She denied the charges and claimed a trial.
Earlier, on December 19, the court had directed that the charges, and said, "This court is of the considered opinion that there exists a prima facie case against the accused, namely, Alka Lamb, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 132/221/223(a)/285 BNS."
"Accordingly, the charge is directed to be framed against the accused under the above-mentioned provisions," the court had ordered.
