The Delhi High Court on Monday, October 12, questioned the Delhi Police over the alleged detention of Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) National Secretary Nadeem Khan, asking why police officers entered his premises and restricted his movement without citing any legal authority, the Live Law reported.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma issued notice to the Delhi Police on Khan’s petition challenging his alleged detention on September 29, when he was purportedly prevented from attending a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar. The court directed the police to file a status report within two weeks.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the police over their entry into Khan’s premises and the legal basis for allegedly confining him. The observations came after the police counsel maintained that Khan had not been detained and that officers had visited only to make inquiries. Appearing for Khan, advocate Shahrukh Alam told the court that police personnel had arrived at his residence and office, located within the same compound, on September 29 without showing any notice or order. Referring to photographs, she submitted that the officers remained at the premises throughout the day, leaving only around 5:30 pm.
Alam alleged that Khan had been confined at the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind headquarters in Abul Fazal Enclave by personnel from Shaheen Bagh Police Station from approximately 9:30 am to 5:30 pm to prevent him from participating in the proposed protest.
She further alleged that Khan had faced continued surveillance and harassment since the incident. According to her submissions, police personnel contacted him on October 2, when his mother was unwell, to ask where he was going. Although they did not stop him from leaving, she said, the repeated calls and surveillance had created an atmosphere of intimidation.
Alam told the court that Khan was a social activist and the national secretary of APCR, which regularly works with lawyers and files public interest litigations.
“I provided them lunch and tea. No notice and order shown,” she submitted as reported by Live Law. describing the police presence at the premises on September 29.
She said she was pressing the plea primarily for a declaration that the alleged actions amounted to harassment. Alam also referred to directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning protests, arguing that they protected the right to free movement and peaceful assembly.
Opposing the allegations, the Delhi Police counsel submitted that Khan had sought permission to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar on September 29, but the request had been denied. The police subsequently received information that he intended to proceed with the demonstration despite the denial, the counsel said.
According to the police, officers were deployed to monitor Khan’s movements, but no detention took place. The counsel also maintained that the officers left at around 5:30 pm and did not visit him again. While dictating its order, the bench recorded the police’s submission that the officers had been deputed only to keep surveillance on Khan’s movements. The court also noted the police counsel’s statement that there was no restriction on Khan’s movement as of Monday and that there had been no violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.
The bench accepted the police’s assurance, conveyed on instructions from the station house officer, that no further phone calls would be made to Khan. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma requested the court not to issue notice, expressing concern that it could be misconstrued. The bench, however, observed that the petition had already been served on the police in advance and that the authorities should have been prepared with a status report.
“Their intention of not filing a status report means they wanted an order of court,” the bench orally remarked.
Khan’s petition also challenges an undated prohibitory order issued by the Delhi Police that bars gatherings of five or more people and demonstrations, dharnas, speeches and the carrying of banners or placards across the New Delhi district, including Jantar Mantar, without prior written permission.
The plea argues that the blanket restrictions violate fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, as well as the guarantees of equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21.
According to the petition, an application seeking permission for the protest was submitted to Parliament Street Police Station on September 19, but no response was received. Khan has alleged that he was later informed through an anonymous phone call that permission had been cancelled. He claims that his subsequent attempt to challenge the cancellation before the station house officer went unanswered.
The proposed demonstration was intended to protest attacks on places of worship and the exclusion of citizens through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Khan has maintained that the gathering was intended to be peaceful and that there was no reasonable apprehension of violence or breach of public order.
The petition further states that Khan was neither formally arrested nor given written grounds for his alleged detention. It also alleges that he was not produced before a magistrate and that his relatives were not informed. The matter will be taken up after the Delhi Police files its status report within the two-week period granted by the court.
