Two members of the CJP, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, have approached the Delhi High Court challenging their judicial custody after they were detained for allegedly climbing a gate to enter Jantar Mantar during a protest against SIR. The move came a day before a special executive magistrate was due to decide whether their custody should be extended.
The two were detained on October 13 and have spent seven days in custody, according to the report. Their initial five-day custody was followed by a two-day extension, which was due to expire on Wednesday. Police have meanwhile transferred the cases registered in connection with the October 13 incident to the Crime Branch.
Das and Ranka have sought an urgent hearing, but the High Court is closed for Dussehra. Their petition was not listed in the court’s cause list available until late Tuesday. Sources cited in the report said a decision could be taken on Wednesday on whether the matter should be listed urgently and a vacation bench assembled.
The immediate legal question could become redundant if the executive magistrate releases the two on Wednesday. However, the petition also raises wider procedural objections to how their custody and release requests were handled. The petitioners have said that their two-day remand violated legal procedure and their right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
They further claimed that they had submitted the required sureties multiple times but continued to remain in custody for six days. The plea alleged that the mandatory procedure under Section 140 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was not followed when the sureties were rejected. According to the petition, delays in accepting and verifying the sureties frustrated the purpose of release.
The case also places the regulation of public protest spaces at the centre of the dispute. Jantar Mantar has been denotified as a protest site, and the two were detained after attempting to enter it in connection with a protest against SIR. The petition argues that restricting liberty in the interest of public order requires a “proximate and real nexus with disturbance of public order”, rather than reliance on a remote possibility.
The petitioners have characterised the dispute over protesting at a denotified site as, at its highest, a question of regulation rather than a threat to public order. The transfer of the cases to the Crime Branch adds a separate policing development while the court considers whether the custody challenge can be heard urgently.
The next immediate steps are the executive magistrate’s decision on Wednesday and any decision by the Delhi High Court on urgent listing or the constitution of a vacation bench.
