The Delhi High Court on Monday sharply questioned the Delhi Police over the alleged house arrest of civil rights activist Nadeem Khan, asking what legal authority allowed officers to enter his residence and restrict his movement merely because permission for a peaceful protest had been denied. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma issued notice to the police, directing a status report within two weeks while recording an assurance that Khan would no longer be disturbed by phone calls.

Khan, national secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), had petitioned the court alleging that officers from Shaheen Bagh police station confined him at the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind headquarters in Abul Fazal Enclave from around 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on September 29. He claimed the action was intended to prevent him from attending a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar against attacks on places of worship and alleged exclusion of citizens from electoral rolls. According to the petition, he was neither formally arrested nor served any written notice.

Court Questions Legal Basis for Entry

During the hearing, the bench observed that while the police have the authority to deny permission for a demonstration, such refusal did not automatically justify restricting an individual’s fundamental right to movement. “How can you enter the house of this man? You have the right to conduct your duties, but how can you do it in such a way?” the court asked the police counsel. “Where is your cause to confine him? Denying permission is within your rights. Show us in law where is your …”

Advocate Shahrukh Alam, appearing for Khan, submitted that the police officers arrived without any notice or order and remained on the premises throughout the day. She referred to photographs showing officers sitting at the reception area and alleged that Khan was effectively prevented from leaving. “I provided them lunch and tea. No notice and order shown,” she said. Alam also told the court that the surveillance had continued after September 29, citing a phone call on October 2 when Khan was heading to attend to his unwell mother. “They called me asking where I was going. I wasn’t stopped, but there has been constant surveillance,” she added.

Police Deny Detention, Court Unconvinced

Delhi Police denied that Khan had been detained, maintaining that officers were sent only to make inquiries after receiving information that he intended to proceed with the protest despite denial of permission. “Please look at the picture, we are sitting at the reception. My lords can see we are sitting with him. There was no detention. It was only to restrict his movement,” the police counsel submitted, adding that no visits had been made after September 29.

The bench, however, was not satisfied with the explanation. It noted that the advance copy of the petition had already been served on the police, yet no status report was filed. “They should have been ready with their response. Since it is not so, their intention appears to be to get a court order,” the court observed during dictation. It directed the police to file a status report within two weeks.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma requested that notice not be issued, expressing concern that it might be misconstrued. The bench declined, reiterating that the police had ample time to prepare. The court also took on record an oral statement from the station house officer that no further phone calls would be made to Khan. “Since the statement is coming from instructions from SHO, the same is accepted,” the bench noted.

Challenging Broader Protest Restrictions

Khan’s petition also challenges an undated prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which bans assemblies of five or more people, demonstrations, dharnas, and carrying banners or placards across the New Delhi district, including Jantar Mantar, without prior written permission. The petition argues that the blanket restriction impermissibly curtails fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, as well as Articles 14 and 21.

However, during Monday’s hearing, Khan’s counsel told the court that they were not pressing the challenge to the prohibitory order at this stage, focusing instead on the alleged illegal detention and continued harassment. The court recorded that Khan was currently in Kolkata for personal reasons and that there were no present restrictions on his movement.

The case has drawn attention amid broader scrutiny of preventive policing in Delhi following mass detentions and restrictions linked to protests against electoral roll revisions. The High Court’s observations underline the legal safeguards governing individual liberty, even when authorities have valid grounds to deny a demonstration.

The next hearing is expected after the police file their status report. The court has not yet made any final determination on whether Khan was illegally detained, and the police have been given an opportunity to explain their actions. For now, the bench’s pointed questions have placed the burden on the authorities to justify the extent of their intervention.