The Delhi High Court has given Delhi Police time until October 13 to respond to the Indian Youth Congress petition seeking permission to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The petition, filed through Indian Youth Congress national president Uday Bhanu Chib, also challenges a Delhi Police letter dated October 1 that denied permission for the demonstration. The youth Congress has said it wants to protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and demand his resignation.
The matter was heard on Monday by a bench led by Justice Amit Mahajan. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for Delhi Police, told the court that he would obtain instructions on the issue and inform the bench on Tuesday. The court then listed the case for hearing on October 13.
During the hearing, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the petitioners, submitted that the petition had been filed four days earlier and argued that the police had sufficient time to obtain instructions. He urged the court to hear the matter on Monday and described it as one involving public interest.
The bench responded that if the petition involved public interest, it should have been placed before a division bench. The court’s observation became a central point in the hearing as the petitioners sought an urgent decision on access to Jantar Mantar, one of Delhi’s designated locations for public demonstrations.
The case places the administrative process for protest permissions under judicial scrutiny. Permission for demonstrations at central Delhi locations involves coordination between organisers and the police, with authorities assessing issues including public order, security and the management of crowds. The supplied report does not specify the reasons cited in the October 1 police letter for refusing permission.
The court also sought a report from Delhi Police on allegations made by civil rights activist Mohammad Wasik Nadim Khan. He has alleged that he was illegally detained to prevent him from participating in a protest at Jantar Mantar and that he was kept under continuous surveillance. The court questioned the conduct of police personnel through the Delhi Police counsel and asked for a report on the allegations.
The two aspects of the proceedings—permission for the proposed Indian Youth Congress demonstration and the allegation of detention—bring both preventive policing and police conduct before the court. No final finding on the allegations has been recorded in the supplied report, and Delhi Police’s response is awaited.
The next hearing is scheduled for October 13, when Delhi Police is expected to respond to the petition and provide the report sought by the court on the alleged detention and surveillance.
