The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned why it should entertain pleas filed by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka challenging the extension of their custody, observing that they could pursue a revision petition instead, the Indian Express reported.
The court also noted that the outcome of the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) concerning their custody was yet to be seen.
Addressing their counsel, advocate Abhik Chimni, the court referred to the leaders’ alleged repeated breach of peace, including their entry into Jantar Mantar during protests, and questioned whether the authorities were justified in seeking stricter proof from them.
“When you have [done so], are authorities not entitled to stricter proof?” the High Court asked.
Counsel for Das and Ranka challenged the extension of their custody, arguing that keeping the two leaders in detention for another two days was unjustified. They also questioned the October 19 order, contending that the SEM lacked the jurisdiction to extend their custody.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was scheduled to hear the pleas filed by Das, Ranka and All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora on Wednesday. The petitions challenge orders passed by special executive magistrates in connection with the police action against the activists.
Das and Ranka were arrested on October 14 for allegedly breaching security and entering Jantar Mantar during protests. On Monday, the SEM extended their custody by two days, bringing the total period to seven days.
The order, signed by SEM Ritu Raj, an assistant commissioner of police-rank officer with the Delhi Police, stated that the leaders’ conduct did not inspire “confidence” and alleged that they had “no respect for law”. It also accused them of repeatedly calling for protests at a site that had been de-notified for demonstrations.
While being taken away, Das described the SEM as a “police court” and said there was “no justice”.
In their petition, the two leaders challenged the rejection of their sureties and the demand for fresh ones. According to the SEM’s order, one surety was rejected because the person’s photograph allegedly did not match the photograph on their Aadhaar card. In the other case, the magistrate cited missing basic details, including parentage.
The petitioners argued that the grounds for rejecting the sureties violated the principles of personal liberty and amounted to a “complete misapplication of the law”. They sought an urgent hearing, including the possibility of a night hearing, alleging a violation of their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bora had approached the High Court on Monday, challenging a notice directing her to show cause why she should not execute a peace bond over the alleged likelihood of a breach of peace.
The student leader was detained at Mandi House on October 16 while travelling to the “Lehra Do Tiranga” march at Connaught Place. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke was also taken into preventive custody ahead of the planned march.
Bora was released in the early hours of October 17 after completing formalities related to her detention under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
On the same day, SEM Mahesh Kumar Meena directed her to appear before the SEM for New Delhi district on October 19.
The notice accused Bora of creating a “nuisance by shouting loudly in protest” at the Mandi House roundabout. It also alleged that she had repeatedly participated in protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The notice further alleged that she had instigated people to join an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place and hoist the national flag without permission.
In her petition, Bora described the notice and the direction to execute a peace bond as a “colourable exercise of preventive powers to suppress peaceful dissent”, based on what she called “vague and factually incorrect” material.
Represented by advocates Abhik Chimni and Pranjal Abrol, she argued that the notice failed to establish a likelihood of breach of peace or identify any specific period, occasion or event in connection with the apprehension. She also contended that preventive powers could not be used as an administrative shortcut whenever protests were anticipated, particularly when prohibitory orders were routinely imposed in response to calls for demonstrations.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and is based on information available in the public domain.
