The have officially filed an before the justifying the detention of seven members of the , a move that follows an urgent during a special Sunday sitting. The seven individuals—Afreen Shaikh, Jack Sukhija, Bupesh Bind, Aditya Parulekar, Listan Noronha, Shamino Fernandes, and Milind Rane—were taken into custody on the afternoon of , following a demonstration at the Azad Maidan in Panaji. The detention triggered an immediate legal challenge, with advocate filing an urgent petition that prompted the court to order the detainees’ release pending further .
In the formal submission signed by Inspector Vijaykumar Chodankar of the , state authorities argued that the detentions were a necessary precautionary measure to maintain . The police emphasized a history of non-compliance by the organization, alleging that the has frequently bypassed standard permit requirements for public demonstrations. According to the state, the organization’s past activities—specifically those purportedly patronizing political figures such as Umar Khalid—had led to friction with law enforcement and prompted heightened security surveillance.
Escalating Tensions Over Public Assembly Permits
The police detailed a series of previous encounters with the , citing at least three specific instances where the organization staged protests without obtaining the required clearances from the competent authorities. The state highlighted a protest on concerning NEET examination grievances as a point of concern. During that event, police reported that an individual named Mohammed Zanskar Danish was brought to the police station for inquiry after being spotted with placards referencing political figures and controversial national events.
"As there was possibility of law-and-order situation, said Mohammed Zanskar Danish was brought at the Police Station for further enquiry. However, hundreds of protestors gathered outside the police station and were requested not to create nuisance and not to block the road, so also, they were asked to show the permission issued by the competent authority to hold the Dharna in front of Police Head Quarters, Panaji, however they failed to produce permission and remain adamant,"
the police submission detailed. The
further claimed that the crowd at the police station engaged in disruptive sloganeering, adding to the state's justification for monitoring the outfit’s subsequent activities in Panaji.
Furthermore, the state alleged that a member of the , Sudeep Dalvi, had engaged in criminal misconduct during a previous assembly by allegedly abusing and physically assaulting a female police officer. This incident, cited by the police to characterize the nature of the protests, contributed to the security assessment that the gathering at Azad Maidan posed an imminent risk to , particularly in light of the presence of individuals from outside Goa.
Judicial Oversight and the Question of Legality
The matter reached a critical juncture when the division bench of the , comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, conducted an urgent hearing to review the legality of the detention. During the proceedings, the bench scrutinized whether the authorities had acted under the valid legal framework required to restrict movement or assembly in the public square. The court noted the absence of a formal notification or order under , which serves as the current instrument for issuing regarding public gatherings.
The bench expressed significant reservations regarding the basis for the detention, noting that the lack of such a formal order rendered the police action potentially unauthorized. While the state asserted that the
had provided oral instructions to manage the assembly at Azad Maidan, the judiciary emphasized that such procedures must adhere to established
. In their order, the judges observed,
"Considering that there are no
under Section 163 of the BNSS, we are of the opinion that the detention may not have been authorised."
As a condition for their immediate release, the court accepted an undertaking from the detainees’ legal counsel, stipulating that they would refrain from holding further protests at Azad Maidan for the duration of that evening. The court clarified that this arrangement was made to the that both sides are entitled to present in future hearings.
Administrative Response and Future Proceedings
In response to allegations of , the categorically denied that the detainees were mistreated or subjected to during the police operation. The state's clarified that the individuals were not formally arrested in the traditional sense, but were detained under the provisions of to prevent the situation from spiraling into a wider public disturbance.
"The protesters were not arrested as such there was no question of any communications of ground of arrest. It is respectfully submitted that minimum required force was used to prevent the protesters from taking law in their hands and at that time no injuries was caused to any of the detainee,"
the police maintained. The authorities asserted that the force deployed at Azad Maidan was in strict accordance with the internal deployment schemes sanctioned by their superiors, aimed at managing the unauthorized ingress into the venue.
The legal battle remains active as both the state and the organization prepare to present further evidence. Following the submission of the police , the has adjourned the matter, scheduling the next hearing for . The court’s decision to keep the matter open underscores the significance of the conflict between the right to assemble and the state's obligation to maintain . The upcoming proceedings are expected to address the broader question of whether the police can rely on the "past history" of an organization as a sufficient basis for in the absence of specific, formal . Until the court reaches a final determination, the case serves as a point of contention regarding the interpretation of under the updated .
Public assembly regulations - custodial detention procedures - state affidavit justification - protest permit enforcement
