The Ratna Singh court case took a setback on Saturday after Delhi’s Saket court rejected her petition seeking an FIR against police officers who allegedly stopped her from attending a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and wrongfully confined her. The petition also sought a status report from the police on the incident.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey passed the order on an application filed by Ratna Singh, the legal head of the Cockroach Party (CJP) and a practising advocate, according to a report by Live Hindustan – NCR. The report does not provide the detailed reasoning for the court’s rejection of the plea.
The case arose during a protest by lawyers in Delhi. Singh’s petition said she was travelling towards the Supreme Court to join the demonstration against the Chief Election Commissioner. She was accompanied by advocate Tara Narula and two other lawyers, according to the application described in the report.
The petition alleged that Singh was stopped outside her home while she was sitting in a car with Narula. Two vehicles were allegedly positioned in front of and behind her car, while police personnel remained outside. Singh claimed that she asked the officers why she was being stopped but was not told the legal basis for restricting her movement.
The application also referred to phone calls made to the police in connection with the incident. Singh sought directions for registration of a first information report against the police personnel involved and requested that the court call for a status report from the police. Her plea stated that the circumstances required an investigation by the competent authorities.
Singh cited concerns relating to her personal liberty and security. The allegations, as reported, centre on whether police officers had a lawful basis to prevent her from travelling to the protest and whether the circumstances warranted a criminal investigation. The court’s rejection means that the specific FIR direction sought in the application was not granted through this plea.
The incident places the legal regulation of protests and police restrictions on movement at the centre of the dispute. In Delhi, demonstrations involving lawyers and public officials can bring questions of access, preventive policing and individual liberty into direct contact with the administration of public order. However, the material supplied in the report does not establish the police officers’ stated justification, whether any police inquiry was conducted, or the detailed grounds on which the court dismissed the application.
The court order was passed after the application was considered by the Saket court. Further legal or administrative steps, if any, were not specified in the supplied report.
