The Delhi High Court has sought a status report from Delhi Police on a petition alleging that civil rights activist Mohammad Wasiq Nadeem Khan was illegally confined at his residence-cum-office to prevent him from attending a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar on September 29.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma issued notice on Khan’s petition and questioned the circumstances in which police personnel allegedly entered the premises and restricted his movement. “How can you enter the house of this man? … Where is your cause to confine him?” the bench asked, according to the report of the proceedings.
The court also acknowledged that the police can deny permission for protests. The immediate issue before it, however, was whether that power could extend to restricting an individual’s movement without a formal arrest or written grounds for confinement.
Khan’s counsel told the court that two police personnel visited the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind headquarters in Abul Fazal Enclave, where the activist’s residence-cum-office is located, on September 29. The petition alleges that Khan’s movement was restricted from around 9.30 am until 5.30 pm.
According to the allegations presented before the court, Khan was not formally arrested and was not given written reasons for the restriction. He also alleged that he remained under surveillance and received repeated police calls seeking information about his whereabouts. The petition describes the conduct as confinement intended to stop him from attending the protest at Jantar Mantar.
Delhi Police denied detaining Khan. The police position, as reported in the proceedings, is that personnel visited the premises only to make enquiries after learning that he might attend the protest, even though permission for the gathering had been denied.
The case places the question of protest regulation alongside the basic procedural safeguards that apply when police action affects a person’s liberty. A decision to refuse permission for a gathering and a decision to restrict an individual inside a private premises are separate actions, and the court’s questions focused on the legal basis for the latter.
The development also highlights the operational role of Jantar Mantar, a designated protest location in central Delhi, where gatherings are subject to police permission and regulation. When authorities prevent attendance before an event, the legal distinction between regulating a public assembly and preventing a particular person from reaching it becomes significant.
The court has sought the police’s status report before proceeding further with the petition. The report is expected to set out the police account of the visit, the purpose of the enquiries and the basis on which officers interacted with Khan on September 29.
