Back
Questions State Over Release of Detained Adult Activist Into Mother's Custody
Dehradun, – The today expressed serious concerns over the detention and subsequent release of activist Prabhat Dhyani, asking the State government to explain under what provisions of law he was held and why an adult was handed over to his mother's custody rather than being set free. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah issued the directions while hearing a petition that alleged and violation of .
Midnight Disappearance and a Plea
Prabhat Dhyani, the national president of the , had announced on Facebook on his plan to join climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s march at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. While travelling from Rishikesh towards Delhi, he was intercepted at Rishikesh Railway Station. According to the petition filed by party secretary Lal Mani, Dhyani managed a brief phone call saying he had been arrested before the line went dead. His family and colleagues received no information on his whereabouts through the night; he was eventually traced to Ramnagar police station in Nainital district, though no , , or place of detention were ever formally disclosed.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking production of Dhyani, disclosure of the complete arrest record, preservation of CCTV footage from Rishikesh station and the , a declaration that the detention was illegal, and compensation of ₹1 crore for alleged violation of his rights under . The petition specifically cited the landmark rulings in and to underscore the requirement of in arrests.
Court Raises Pointed Questions
When the matter came up for hearing, the State’s counsel initially sought time to place documents on record explaining the circumstances of the detention. As proceedings unfolded, the Additional Government Advocate informed the bench that the had been released and given into the custody of his mother, Uma Dhyani. Petitioner’s counsel, , told the court she had no such information.
The bench then recorded a series of directives and queries that struck at the heart of the legality of the State’s actions. The order, dictated in open court, read:
“The learned State counsel shall place on record the entire document for the perusal of the Court which led to the apprehension and release of the . The Court would also like to know as to why an adult is given into the custody of his mother and why he was not set free? The first and foremost question would be, under what circumstances and under what provisions of law, the Prabhat Dhyani was detained ?”
The court did not accept the fait accompli of release without scrutiny, instead directing a thorough examination of the detention itself. By insisting on the production of documents and asking why an adult who had allegedly been illegally detained was not restored to liberty but placed under maternal care, the bench signaled that the mere fact of release does not extinguish the constitutional inquiry.
Implications and Next Steps
The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on . The order effectively puts the State on notice that it must justify every stage of the episode — from the initial interception to the unusual mode of release. The requirement to produce all documents related to apprehension and release, coupled with the pointed question about the legal basis for detention, indicates that the court will examine whether the police action violated the constitutional guarantees of and .
For now, the bench’s observations serve as a reminder that remains a robust remedy against , and that even the of a person does not close the court’s inquiry into the legality of the deprivation that preceded it.
