Delhi Police detentions during a protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have triggered questions over the legal authority used to restrain demonstrators, particularly those picked up outside the New Delhi district where prohibitory orders were in force.
The detentions took place on Saturday, October 10, as police moved to prevent a youth protest linked to allegations of deletions from electoral rolls. Among those detained were Cockroach Janta Party representatives Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who were taken into custody after police boarded their Air India flight following its arrival in Delhi.
CJP legal wing head Ratna Singh alleged that police prevented her from leaving her residence in Jangpura. YouTuber Dhruv Rathee was detained at a residential flat in Gurugram, while other protesters were reportedly picked up and taken away in buses across the capital. Some detainees alleged that they were not informed of the grounds for their detention.
Delhi Police has maintained that detentions in the capital followed violations of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The provision replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and allows an executive magistrate to issue orders when immediate prevention or speedy remedy is considered necessary. The orders in force in the New Delhi district prohibit unauthorised public assemblies, demonstrations and protests.
The reported detentions have raised a separate question over the legal basis for action in areas where those prohibitory orders were not in force. The report did not establish whether police invoked other preventive powers, including provisions under special laws, in those cases.
Advocate Nipun Saxena said the detention of CJP representatives from parts of Delhi-NCR where prohibitory orders were not applicable was illegal. He also criticised what he described as the repeated use of prohibitory orders to restrict peaceful protests, arguing that an exceptional measure intended for emergencies was increasingly being reissued as a routine administrative tool.
Saxena further questioned the use of detention instead of formal arrest. He said police may prefer brief detention and release within 24 hours because formal arrests bring additional procedural requirements, including the need to justify the action before a court in applicable cases. The safeguards governing temporary restraints during protests, however, have not been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court, according to the report.
Former Supreme Court judge Abhay S. Oka said Article 22 of the Constitution requires authorities to communicate the grounds for depriving a person of liberty as soon as possible. He said the protection could not be avoided merely by describing the restraint as detention rather than arrest.
Saxena also said that even when police claim to be exercising preventive powers, the grounds for detention must be communicated at the earliest opportunity. He referred to Supreme Court judgments concerning preventive detention under laws including the National Security Act, 1980, where communication of the grounds is treated as an essential safeguard.
Late on Saturday, Delhi Police said women protesters and senior citizens were being released from detention centres. It said due legal process would be followed in the case of the CJP leaders. The immediate legal authority for detentions outside areas covered by the Section 163 orders remained unclear in the report.
