Delhi Police Flags ‘Nepal-Style’ Plot Behind Shirtless Protest at AI Summit

The Delhi Police on Saturday informed a city court that the shirtless demonstration by members of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) during the recent AI Summit resembled protests seen in Nepal and was allegedly part of a calculated attempt to tarnish India’s global image.

The submissions were made while seeking five days of police custody for four IYC workers arrested over the incident at Bharat Mandapam. The accused — Krishna Hari, Kundan Yadav, Ajay Kumar and Narasimha Yadav — were produced before the Patiala House Court earlier in the day.

According to investigators, the protest was premeditated and carefully coordinated. During the AI Impact Summit on Friday, the four men allegedly removed their shirts inside the exhibition area and displayed T-shirts carrying slogans critical of the central government and the India-US trade agreement. Security officials quickly intervened and escorted them out of the venue.

Opposing bail and pressing for custody, the prosecution claimed that provocative and anti-national slogans were raised in the presence of foreign delegates and other high-profile attendees. Police further told the court that three personnel sustained injuries during the commotion. Investigators said they need access to the accused’s mobile phones to determine whether any financial backing was involved and to identify others who may have been part of the plan but managed to leave the scene. Officials also argued that since the four individuals came from separate locations and allegedly collaborated to print the T-shirts, custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the full extent of the alleged conspiracy.

The investigating officer maintained that the matter goes beyond a spontaneous act of protest and involves deeper coordination, making extended custody necessary for a thorough probe.

The defence, however, described the case as politically motivated.

Counsel for the accused told the court that the demonstration was non-violent and fell within the constitutional right to protest. The lawyer contended that there is no evidence of physical aggression in available footage and emphasized that the offences cited carry limited maximum penalties. He also argued that the four men are educated professionals and are being singled out due to their affiliation with an opposition political outfit.

In seeking bail, the defence maintained that dissent should not be criminalised and questioned the need for police custody, asserting that the young accused have careers at stake and should not face prolonged detention without compelling justification.

The court has asked the police to justify the demand for five days of custody, with further proceedings expected as it weighs the arguments from both sides.​