Back
Orders Police Affidavit on Activists' Detention
In an urgent special Sunday hearing, a Division Bench of the
comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja directed the
to file a detailed affidavit within one week explaining the circumstances and legal authority behind the alleged illegal detention of around 10 student-activists last week. The court also mandated the preservation of key CCTV footage from detention sites and police stations to safeguard potential evidence, while issuing notice on multiple
petitions. Despite police assertions that all detainees had been released, the bench refused to close the matter, emphasizing,
"We are not closing the petition. We are issuing notice to find out what happened."
This intervention underscores mounting concerns over procedural lapses, custodial abuse allegations, and the balance between investigative powers and constitutional safeguards under
.
The development arises from a series of writs filed under , seeking the production of individuals allegedly held without lawful authority. Petitioners claimed violations of fundamental rights, including arbitrary pickups by plainclothes officers, failure to produce detainees before a magistrate within 24 hours as mandated by the , and subjection to torture. The matter, listed for further hearing on , highlights evolving tensions in India's criminal justice landscape post the transition from to BNSS.
The Incidents: Sweep of Student Activists
The detentions reportedly occurred over and 13, targeting activists affiliated with left-leaning student and labor groups. Sources indicate around 10 individuals were picked up in separate operations across north Delhi. On , two activists were allegedly forced into vehicles outside the back gate of Dayal Singh College. Another was taken from the Jahangirpuri area later that evening. The following night, seven more were detained from the office of the , a Delhi University-based student organization, in Vijay Nagar near North Campus.
Among the detainees were six BSCEM members, two from the Sonipat-based
(a labor union), and two from the
, which advocates for tribal rights in Chhattisgarh. One prominent case involved Lakshita Rajora, a 22-year-old activist, whose sister Sagrika Rajora filed a petition alleging she had been missing since
evening after visiting the BSCEM office. The plea further revealed a troubling history: approximately eight months prior, Lakshita and associates endured
"unrecorded, illegal abduction and severe custodial torture"
by
Special Cell officials for over a week.
Other detainees had prior brushes with law enforcement. Three were arrested in November last year during an India Gate protest against air pollution for allegedly raising Naxalite slogans. Another, Shiv Kumar, suffered unlawful detention and torture by Haryana Police in , as confirmed by a Faridabad district judge's inquiry report before the . Petitioners' counsel argued these sweeps were part of a pattern targeting dissent, with releases occurring only after news of the High Court bench formation broke—specifically, nine of the 10 were let go at midnight, hours before the hearing.
Urgent Sunday Hearing Unfolds
The High Court convened a rare Sunday session on
(or proximate date per reports) at noon to address three habeas petitions. Counsel for the police informed the bench that all detainees had been released, describing the matter as
"not so simple"
and asserting the FIR was "confidential in nature," refusing to share copies with petitioners. However, one activist, Rudra Vikram Roy, remained untraced per his family's claims, despite police insistence on his release. The bench sharply responded,
"You will have to trace him,"
and scheduled a Monday hearing for his separate petition. Subsequent updates confirmed Rudra's release post-Sunday proceedings, though only after court intervention.
, representing petitioner Ehsanul Haq, labeled the situation
"alarming"
, urging disclosure of the FIR.
, for Sagrika Rajora, highlighted Lakshita's plainclothes abduction and sought activist protection. The court deferred protection orders, noting,
"We don’t know what they are required for. We can’t say anything,"
but permitted petitioners to file additional affidavits detailing released activists' testimonies by Monday. Lawyers alleged ongoing threats via messages pressuring case withdrawals.
Court's Directives: Affidavit and Evidence Preservation
The bench's pivotal order stated: “We are informed that as far as the missing persons alleged to have been illegally detained, they have since been released. The respondent shall file an affidavit explaining the circumstances and the authority of the law by which they were detained within a week from today.” CCTV preservation was ordered for multiple sites—Dyal Singh College back gate, Jahangirpuri, BSCEM office, Vijay Nagar, and relevant police stations—to avert tampering, though Special Cell office footage was deferred. The court declined a medical board for Rudra's alleged injuries (marks on hands, face, private parts) but kept avenues open.
Notice was issued on all petitions, consolidating with kin of other activists for . No immediate FIR production was directed, balancing probe secrecy with transparency demands.
Grave Allegations of Custodial Abuse
Petitioners painted a stark picture: plainclothes officers herded activists to unmarked "safe houses" bypassing police stations, flouting (arrest memo) and (24-hour magistrate production). Detainees were allegedly tortured, threatened with elimination, and coerced into signing "voluntary investigation" statements upon release. Rudra's counsel cited visible injuries, contesting police narratives. These echo Supreme Court mandates in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), requiring custody safeguards, and protections against arbitrary arrest.
Police's Defense: Voluntary Cooperation
countered that individuals received formal notices under (pre-arrest summons) and complied voluntarily in an ongoing confidential FIR probe. Releases were routine, not pressured by court news, they claimed. Counsel emphasized investigative imperatives, invoking probe integrity over immediate disclosures.
Legal Ramifications Under BNSS and Constitution
This case tests the BNSS regime, effective , which codifies stricter arrest protocols amid digital-era scrutiny. mandates informing grounds of arrest and relative rights; requires audio-video recording where feasible. remains a bulwark, as affirmed in reversals and . FIR confidentiality clashes with Youth Bar Association v. Union of India (2016), mandating disclosure under , barring exceptions like national security.
CCTV orders align with Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021), stressing forensic preservation in torture claims. Art 21's expanse demands proportionality in "preventive" actions against activists.
Implications for Human Rights Litigation
For legal professionals, this signals 's vitality for urgent relief, especially Sunday sittings for liberty threats. Defense lawyers gain ammunition challenging "voluntary" narratives via CCTV, while prosecutors must justify secrecy. Human rights bar may leverage for systemic reform, akin to interventions. Broader justice system impact: bolsters evidence integrity, curbing "encounter" or midnight release tropes; influences UAPA-like probes on activists, post-Bhima Koregaon.
In student activism contexts—BSCEM's anti-CAA echoes—this fortifies free speech under Art 19, deterring overreach.
Looking Ahead: Hearing
With affidavits due soon, looms critical. Petitioners eye FIR/production orders; police, probe continuity. This saga may catalyze BNSS guidelines on activist detentions, affirming courts as liberty sentinels.
