New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard a petition filed by Cochroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka challenging an order extending their custody until October 21. Following strong observations and suggestions from the court, the two leaders decided to withdraw their petition. Their lawyer indicated that further legal steps would be considered after the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM).
The matter was heard by a bench headed by Justice Subramonium Prasad. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Abhik Chimni argued that the order extending their custody was legally unsustainable. He questioned the authority under which the extension had been granted and submitted that the continued detention affected the fundamental right to personal liberty.
What Did the High Court Say?
During the hearing, the court advised the petitioners to first pursue the proceedings before the concerned magistrate and assess the outcome before seeking further intervention from the High Court.
The bench observed that arguments should be made when necessary and suggested that the lawyers preserve their submissions for the appropriate stage of the proceedings. It indicated that if the matter was resolved before the magistrate, further proceedings before the High Court might not be required. If the decision went against the petitioners, they could consider the legal remedies available to them.
The court also raised questions concerning the circumstances that could affect public peace and order. It observed that the activities of individuals, the role of their organisation and its objectives could be relevant when authorities assess the possibility of a breach of peace.
Questions About the Organisation and Its Objectives
During the proceedings, the bench discussed the nature of the organisation associated with the two leaders and the objectives behind its activities. The court observed that the purpose of a protest and any subsequent developments needed to be understood in their proper context.
The bench also asked about the ages of the petitioners. Their lawyer stated that Saurav Das was 27 and Ashutosh Ranka was 32. The court subsequently raised a question about the definition of Generation Z.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioners
The petitioners' counsel argued that the order extending their custody lacked adequate legal justification. He submitted that the magistrate had not sufficiently explained the material supporting the apprehension of a possible future threat that could justify continued detention.
The petitioners also alleged that the custody extension was granted on the basis of a police application without an adequate independent assessment of whether their continued detention was necessary. They contended that the decision interfered with their right to personal liberty.
Their counsel further argued that participating in a protest at a restricted location should not automatically be treated as a serious threat to public order. These submissions represent the petitioners' arguments and allegations before the court.
Court Discusses Legal Remedies
The hearing also involved a discussion about preventive custody, preventive detention and the scope of judicial review. The bench noted that a habeas corpus petition may be available in certain circumstances involving preventive detention.
The court explained the distinction between an appeal and a writ proceeding. While an appellate court may examine facts and their assessment, a court hearing a writ petition generally focuses on the legality of the decision-making process.
The bench also questioned the legal basis for approaching the High Court at that stage, given that proceedings were scheduled before the magistrate.
Why Were the Two Leaders Detained?
According to the information available in the case, Delhi Police detained Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on October 13 following an incident involving the unfurling of the national flag at Jantar Mantar.
The Special Executive Magistrate subsequently sent them into custody for five days on October 15. Their custody was later extended until October 21, prompting them to challenge the order before the High Court.
The petitioners maintained that the extension was not supported by adequate legal grounds and infringed upon their personal liberty.
What Happens Next?
Following the court's observations and suggestions, the petitioners' lawyer sought permission to withdraw the plea, and the court accepted the request.
The lawyer stated that the next course of action would be decided after the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate. Further legal steps will depend on the outcome of those proceedings and the remedies available under the law.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
