#WATCH | Mumbai: Students staged a protest at Chaityabhoomi, expressing disappointment over the lack of action in the IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode’s death case. Police detained all the protesters at the site. https://t.co/wxdd5uvOaA

— ANI (@ANI) October 25, 2026

Comedian Masoom Rajwani and many others detained by Mumbai Police.

Their crime?

Carrying out a peaceful candlelight gathering for Sahil Wakode.

Sahil, a Dalit student, died by suicide at IIT Bombay.

His parents have alleged that caste-based harassment led to his death https://t.co/7UgIIQwSL8

— Parth MN (@parthpunter) October 25, 2026

Why is Mumbai police house-arresting General Secretary of AIISCA @deepali_writes from going to Chaityabhoomi for candle gathering at 6 PM. Chait yabhoomi is a sacred place for Ambedicarites, it is arrocously casterst, cowardly and unconstitutional of police to detain Deepali. Why is the state so afraid of Dalits demanding justice?

— TheAmbedkarianChronicle (@TheAmbedkarian) October 25, 2026

VIDEO | Mumbai: The Progressive Students Union (PSU) organised a candlelight march at Chaityabhoomi to demand justice in the case of the suicide of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode.

Protesters participating in the march were taken into custody. A heavy police force was deployed in the area as a precautionary measure.

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/bIyFWTfmBd)

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 25, 2026

https://www.instagram.com/p/De8wW4MjUw_/ 

Parents of Wakode were also detained, and released later. 

Mumbai police has illegally detained Sahil Wakode’s parents in an unknown location.

— TheAmbedkarianChronicle (@TheAmbedkarian) October 25, 2026

The detentions at Chaityabhoomi, the memorial site of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, came amid mounting demands for accountability from the IIT Bombay administration over allegations of caste-based harassment preceding Wakode’s death. Rather than allowing students and concerned citizens to mourn and demand justice peacefully, the police deployed a heavy force, prevented the gathering from proceeding freely and detained participants on the grounds that the vigil lacked permission. 

According to The Hindu, approximately 20 to 25 people were detained at Chaityabhoomi, with protesters alleging that police personnel forcibly removed participants, including women. The Times of India also reported the detentions, confirming that Rajwani was among those taken into custody. Police maintained that the gathering was unauthorised and cited law-and-order concerns.

The Progressive Students Union (PSU) had called for the candlelight vigil at 5.30 p.m. to pay tribute to Wakode and demand an impartial investigation into his death. Participants included students and activists associated with organisations supporting the struggle for justice, including individuals from IIT Bombay and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.

According to accounts reported by The Hindu, protesters alleged that police personnel carried out two rounds of detentions, at around 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. Tejas Anoop of Aamchi Padhai Aamchi Ladai said police approached individuals and detained those they suspected of participating in the protest, including people carrying candles or placards. He further alleged that people who questioned the detentions or sought written authorisation were also taken away.

Rajwani told The Hindu that he arrived at Chaityabhoomi around 6.10 p.m. and that the march had still not begun by 7.30 p.m. He alleged that four police personnel lifted him by his arms and legs while detaining him, causing a minor scratch. He also claimed that detainees were not told where they were being taken and were not provided water during transportation.

Another participant, Akalya, alleged that four police personnel put her inside a van while she was photographing the gathering. She said she was kept inside for approximately 30 to 45 minutes without being informed of the reason for her detention. Her phone was temporarily taken away when she tried to contact her family, she alleged.

Deepali, another participant, said she had been taken to a police station and released around 6.30 p.m. She maintained that the gathering was intended to be peaceful and condemned the manner in which participants were treated. Social media posts also raised allegations that police had prevented activists, including the general secretary of the All India Independent Scheduled Caste Association (AIISCA), from reaching Chaityabhoomi.

Despite the police action, approximately 40 to 50 people subsequently gathered to pay tribute to Wakode, according to reports. Those detained were released from police stations in Tardeo, Worli and Dadar later that evening.

People broke free from Tardeo police station https://t.co/HXDOLYDJgC

— Preksha (@09preksha) October 25, 2026

A month of protests, allegations of police brutality

Wakode, a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay’s Powai campus, was found dead in his hostel room on September 18, hours after he was allegedly caught using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination. His parents and fellow students subsequently raised allegations of caste-based harassment and mistreatment.

A police complaint named Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and invoked provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alongside provisions relating to abetment of suicide. Doolla, who was removed from his position as dean of students’ welfare and sent on leave, has been at the centre of allegations concerning his treatment of Wakode. The professor and IIT Bombay Director Shireesh Kedare have denied allegations of caste-based discrimination. The Mumbai Crime Branch has taken over the investigation and recorded statements from more than 40 people.

The police action at Chaityabhoomi followed earlier detentions of Wakode’s parents and protesting students on October 18, exactly a month after his death. At the time, police also demolished the protest site outside IIT Bombay and detained several people. Students and activists have continued to allege that the police, acting alongside the institutional response to the death, have repeatedly attempted to suppress their demands for accountability.

As The Wire previously reported, a student injured during an earlier protest received a medico-legal certificate from KMJ Hospital in Vikhroli that reportedly recorded “assault by Powai police” as the cause of injury. The certificate also documented blunt trauma to the shoulder and a linear abrasion over the right elbow, alongside a reported attempt to strangle the student. Earlier social media posts had also alleged that women protesters were dragged, beaten and inappropriately touched by police personnel.

84 organisations demand IIT Bombay director’s resignation

The police crackdown came as 84 organisations from across the country issued an open letter demanding the resignation of IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare, describing it as a necessary measure of institutional accountability following Wakode’s death. As reported by Maktoob Media, the letter accused the institute of responding to complaints of caste discrimination with callousness and repression. The signatories questioned the administration’s decision to refer to Wakode as a “cheater” in its initial communication following his death, arguing that the statement risked discrediting the student before the circumstances surrounding his death had been adequately investigated.

The letter also criticised the public support extended by the institute’s faculty body to Doolla, who has been named in the police complaint, and raised concerns about the alleged selective release of examination-hall CCTV footage to the media. It further condemned the police action against Wakode’s parents and fellow students during earlier protests.

“The series of events which has unfolded following the unfortunate demise of your student Sahil Wakode has revealed IIT Bombay administration to be spectacularly callous at best or maliciously repressive towards complaints of caste discrimination,” the letter stated.

The signatories include student unions, Ambedkarite organisations, teachers’ associations and civil rights groups, including the Ambedkar Students’ Association, Students’ Federation of India, All India Students’ Association, National Alliance of People’s Movements and Disha Students’ Organisation.

The organisations argued that the director’s resignation was necessary to establish accountability and send a clear message that allegations of discrimination and harassment against marginalised students cannot be brushed aside through institutional statements or disciplinary narratives that shift scrutiny onto the deceased student.

Tribal students detained at Shivaji Park

The crackdown was not confined to Chaityabhoomi. At nearby Shivaji Park, Mumbai Police detained approximately 120 tribal students and activists who had assembled to demand the resignation of Maharashtra Tribal Development Minister Ashok Uike, along with the commissioner and secretary of the tribal development department.

According to PTI and The New Indian Express, the protesters were seeking accountability for deteriorating conditions in tribal residential schools, an inquiry into the alleged deaths of 584 students, improved hostel facilities and the scrapping of the contract system for centralised kitchens in tribal residential schools.

The students had reportedly been agitating since August. Their earlier demonstration on October 5 had ended with police detaining participants and sending them back to their hometowns in Nashik, Nandurbar and Jalgaon. On Sunday, protesters said they were detained at Dadar railway station and near Tilak Bhavan before they could reach the proposed venue. Police personnel were also reportedly deployed at railway stations and bus stops along routes leading to Shivaji Park. The protesters had sought permission to demonstrate at Azad Maidan and Shivaji Park but were denied permission. They said they would continue their agitation at Azad Maidan on Monday.

Taken together, the detentions at Shivaji Park and Chaityabhoomi reveal a disturbing pattern: students raising questions about caste deaths, discrimination and the treatment of vulnerable communities are met with preventive custody and restrictions on assembly rather than meaningful engagement with their grievances.

At Chaityabhoomi, the demand was for justice for a young Dalit student whose death has raised serious questions about caste discrimination and institutional responsibility. At Shivaji Park, tribal students were seeking accountability for conditions in residential schools and alleged student deaths. Both gatherings were disrupted by police action.

Related:

7,000 farmers and workers rally in Maharashtra as drought deepens agrarian crisis

Dalit Class XI student dies by suicide after alleged casteist harassment in Coimbatore School

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

The post Mumbai police detain 140 protesters as student’s demand justice for Sahil Wakode, accountability from IIT Bombay appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Subramonium Prasad held that there was sufficient material before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to initiate preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court, however, did not determine whether Bora had ultimately breached the law or whether she must furnish a bond. It directed the State to disclose all material relied upon in the proceedings and required the SEM to follow the principles of natural justice and independently decide whether an interim bond was necessary.

From a call to gather at Mandi House to preventive proceedings

Bora, who is also described in the judgment as a social activist, had posted an invitation on Instagram on October 16, calling people to assemble at Mandi House at 5 pm. Her post stated: “Jantar Mantar is not a site that you can denotify, it’s a symbol of our resistance! Today, all of Central Delhi has become Jantar Mantar!”

The judgment records that Bora was detained by Delhi Police at around 5:30 pm that day and released on October 17. The notice initiating preventive proceedings was issued on October 17 by Mahesh Kumar Meena, the SEM for New Delhi district. It called upon her to appear and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety for the same amount under Section 135(3) of the BNSS.

The notice alleged that Bora had created a nuisance by shouting slogans at the Mandi House roundabout, repeatedly participated in protest-related activity around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and instigated people to join an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place. It also alleged that she had called for the national flag to be hoisted without obtaining permission and that there was a likelihood of a breach of public peace and tranquillity.

The notice stated that she might commit a breach of peace or a wrongful act likely to disturb public tranquillity within the SEM’s jurisdiction. It invoked Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS to initiate proceedings and required her to appear on October 19. The judgment noted that Bora sought exemption from personal appearance on health grounds on October 19 and was subsequently directed to appear before the SEM on October 24.

Bora challenged the notice as mechanical and based on hearsay

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the notice did not satisfy the legal requirements of Section 126 of the BNSS and merely reproduced the language of the statutory provision. He submitted that the SEM was required to examine the information received, make an independent assessment of whether it disclosed a likelihood of breach of peace, and record the basis for initiating proceedings.

The challenge also questioned the reliance placed on the police kalandara, the report submitted to initiate preventive proceedings. Bora’s counsel argued that the SEM had acted on the report and the directions of senior police officers rather than forming an independent opinion. He pointed to the SEM’s order of October 17, which recorded that the kalandara had been submitted by Sub-Inspector Vaishali Tushir and that the notice should be issued after its inspection.

The petition also contested the claim that Mandi House was covered by a prohibitory order. Counsel relied on an order dated August 23, 2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Parliament Street subdivision, to argue that the location where Bora had called for a gathering was not within the area covered by restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS.

Another central argument was that the information cited in the notice was hearsay and did not provide a sufficient factual basis for proceedings that could affect Bora’s liberty. Counsel maintained that a peaceful protest could not, by itself, justify preventive action and disputed the allegation that Bora had urged people to gather at Central Park, Connaught Place, where another group had called for a protest.

The petition also raised the question of whether the SEM could initiate proceedings on the material placed by police without conducting the inquiry required by law. Counsel argued that the statutory safeguards were particularly important because failure to furnish an interim bond could have consequences for personal liberty.

State relied on prohibitory orders, police records and previous cases

Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma argued that Section 126 of the BNSS allows an Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings when information indicates that a person is likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity and the Magistrate considers there to be sufficient grounds to proceed.

The State maintained that the SEM had relied not merely on an allegation or hearsay, but on the kalandara dated October 17 and supporting material. It argued that the SEM had considered the report and heard the investigating officer before forming an opinion. Sharma further submitted that the assessment at this stage was a matter of the SEM’s subjective satisfaction and that the High Court should not substitute its own assessment for that of the authority conducting the inquiry.

The State also argued that the petition was premature. Under the statutory scheme, it said, the person receiving the notice would have an opportunity to appear, contest the information and participate in the inquiry. If the allegations were not substantiated, the person could be discharged under Section 137 of the BNSS and would not be required to furnish a bond, or any bond already furnished could be discharged. The State submitted that the law provided remedies at subsequent stages and that the High Court should not interrupt the proceedings merely because a show-cause notice had been issued.

On the question of the restrictions in force at Mandi House, the State relied on a prohibitory order dated August 24, 2026, issued under Section 163 of the BNSS by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Barakhamba Road subdivision. According to the State, the order covered the jurisdictions of Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg police stations, including Mandi House.

The police kalandara alleged that Bora arrived at the Mandi House roundabout at around 5:10 pm with approximately 40 to 50 protesters and began moving towards Barakhamba Road while raising slogans. It claimed that police repeatedly announced over a loudspeaker that Section 163 was in force and that gatherings of five or more people, demonstrations, processions and dharnas were prohibited in the area. The report alleged that Bora continued moving forward and raising slogans, including “Reclaim Jantar Mantar”, “Gyanesh Kumar, resign” and “We do not accept any Section 163 BNSS, nor do we accept any such law”, before police stopped the group after considerable effort.

The kalandara also alleged that Bora had repeatedly participated in demonstrations around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, had encouraged people through her language and social-media posts to violate the law, and had called upon supporters and members of the Cockroach  (CJP) to gather at Connaught Place and hoist the national flag without permission.

The police report sought to justify the restrictions by referring to Connaught Place’s commercial character, traffic movement, the presence of banks, offices, hotels, showrooms and vendors, the high footfall at Rajiv Chowk Metro Station, and the potential for crowding to obstruct emergency services. It also referred to the area’s proximity to Parliament and the Central Secretariat and argued that a gathering could affect public safety, traffic and livelihoods.

The report further alleged that previous events involving AISA and CJP had seen violence and property damage, that Bora had previously been detained under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and that several FIRs had been registered against her. It claimed that she might again attempt to gather people at prohibited locations and provoke demonstrations, creating a risk to public and government property.

The police report stated that the matter had been brought to the attention of senior officers and that preventive action had been considered necessary on their directions. This aspect was significant to Bora’s challenge, which argued that the proceedings reflected a command from senior officers rather than an independent decision by the SEM.

Court found material for initiating proceedings, but did not decide the allegations finally

After examining the record, the High Court noted that the material placed before the SEM included three General Diary entries relating to different incidents and dates, the kalandara dated October 17, and information relating to six FIRs registered at Parliament Street, Barakhamba Road and Connaught Place police stations. The record also included information under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act.

The judgment identifies General Diary entry No. 19A dated October 17, relating to information under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act; entry No. 20A dated October 17, recorded at Barakhamba Road police station under Sections 126 and 169 of the BNSS; and entry No. 111A dated September 25, recorded at Parliament Street police station in relation to Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act.

The court also recorded that three witnesses had been examined in connection with the material, including Sub-Inspector Vaishali Tushir. It concluded that the SEM had considered the kalandara, the General Diary entries and the accompanying material before initiating proceedings.

Importantly, the High Court said it would not rely on additional video material handed over by the State because it was unclear whether those videos had been placed before the SEM when the decision to initiate proceedings was made. The court confined its assessment to the material that could be shown to have been before the Magistrate.

The court rejected the argument that the notice was based on no material or merely on hearsay. It held that the notice had identified the alleged conduct at Mandi House and the alleged attempt to mobilise people for a demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place. It also noted that the prohibitory order dated August 24 covered Mandi House, rejecting Bora’s argument that the location fell outside the restrictions.

The court distinguished the present case from Sumitra Dhal v. State of Odisha, in which the notice had not disclosed even a summary of the information or incidents said to justify apprehension of a breach of peace. It also distinguished Anuj Suhag v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the proceedings were based on a single incident, noting that the material in Bora’s case included multiple General Diary entries, FIRs and the prohibitory orders.

The High Court held that a notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS need not read like a judicial judgment. It must convey the substance of the information received and the reasons for the Magistrate’s opinion. It also accepted that the two statutory requirements could be conveyed through a composite notice rather than separate documents, relying on the Bombay High Court Full Bench ruling in Farhan Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra.

The court’s conclusion was that the material was sufficient to cross the threshold for issuing a show-cause notice. It expressly refrained from deciding the truth of the allegations or whether the SEM’s assessment would ultimately justify requiring Bora to furnish a bond.

Preventive proceedings are not punishment, court says

A substantial part of the judgment examines the purpose and limits of preventive proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS, which deals with security for keeping the peace and good behaviour. The court reiterated that proceedings under these provisions are preventive rather than punitive. Their purpose is to avert a possible breach of peace, not to punish a person for an offence already committed. Under Section 126, an Executive Magistrate may require a person to show cause why a bond should not be ordered if information indicates that the person is likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity and the Magistrate considers there to be sufficient grounds to proceed. The period of a bond under that provision cannot exceed one year.

The court held that, at the stage of a challenge to a show-cause notice, the High Court’s inquiry is generally limited to whether there was material before the SEM and whether the SEM applied his mind to it. The writ court should not ordinarily replace the Magistrate’s assessment with its own, unless the case involves a complete absence of material or an exceptional ground for interference.

For this proposition, the judgment relied on Supreme Court rulings including Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghoushe, Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories and J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement. These decisions recognise that show-cause notices should not routinely be quashed before the authority has had an opportunity to conduct the prescribed proceedings, while also acknowledging exceptions where a notice is without jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, is pre-determined, constitutes an abuse of process or violates natural justice.

The court observed that preventive action may be based on the circumstances and nature of the alleged conduct rather than the number of incidents alone. It said even a single incident may, in appropriate circumstances, support apprehension of a future breach of peace. In Bora’s case, however, the court relied on its view that the record contained multiple entries and other material, rather than a solitary allegation.

The judgment also stated that the SEM was not required to conduct a full fact-finding investigation before issuing the notice. The court considered the initial examination of the information and the recording of the three witnesses sufficient to meet the threshold for initiating proceedings. It did not, however, dispense with the requirement of a proper inquiry before any final decision or interim order affecting Bora’s liberty.

Court emphasises safeguards under Madhu Limaye

The court devoted particular attention to the Supreme Court’s five-judge Bench decision in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, which stresses that preventive powers must be exercised with care because personal liberty is at stake. The Supreme Court had held that a Magistrate cannot demand an interim bond or place a person in jeopardy of detention without making the inquiry required by law into the truth of the information. The safeguards governing preventive proceedings must be strictly followed, and reasons must be recorded in writing. The power is judicial in character and cannot be exercised as a purely administrative measure.

The State relied on other passages in Madhu Limaye recognising that preventive provisions are intended to address reasonable apprehensions of conduct likely to disturb public peace. The Delhi High Court concluded that the principles laid down in that decision had not been violated at the stage then before it, but made clear that the SEM must continue to comply with those safeguards in the later proceedings.

Police directed to disclose all material; bond cannot be automatic

Despite dismissing Bora’s petition, the High Court issued specific directions to safeguard her rights during the inquiry. First, the State must provide Bora with all the material on which it intends to rely when she appears before the SEM. The court directed that the principles of natural justice must be followed before any order requiring her to furnish a bond is passed.

Second, the court specifically addressed Section 135(3) of the BNSS, which permits an interim bond during the pendency of an inquiry in circumstances where the statutory requirements are met. It left the question of whether to insist on a bond at the first instance to the SEM, emphasising that the provision concerns an apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity arising after the inquiry has commenced and before it is completed. The SEM must therefore independently apply his mind to the material and decide whether an interim bond is necessary. The court directed him to take into account the safeguards laid down in Madhu Limaye and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Aldanish Rein v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Third, the court made clear that Bora would retain the right to pursue remedies at subsequent stages of the proceedings, including after a final order is passed at the conclusion of the inquiry. Its observations were expressly limited to the question of whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage when only a show-cause notice had been issued. The writ petition was dismissed along with any pending applications.

The ruling leaves the preventive proceedings against Bora to continue before the SEM. It upholds the initiation of those proceedings, but leaves the substantive questions, including whether the allegations warrant a bond and whether an interim bond is necessary, for independent determination in accordance with the law.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

People take to the streets to defend the right to vote and protest against SIR

CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar

SKM calls for scrapping SIR, removal of Gyanesh Kumar and restoration of voting rights

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Bikaner House censors 75 photographs of Delhi protests from Raihan Vadra’s exhibition, leaving empty walls behind

CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards

‘Chalo Delhi’: Thousands march to Supreme court against ‘Vote Chori’, demand Gyanesh Kumar’s removal

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

The post Delhi High Court rejects AISA president Neha Bora’s plea against peace-bond notice, directs police to disclose material appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We acknowledge that the unlawful arrest has caused substantial financial loss to the Petitioner, in addition to irreparable damage to his reputation and lasting blemish on his credibility.” (Para 26)

In a strongly worded judgment pronounced on October 22, a division bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata held that the arrest was arbitrary, mala fide and carried out without applying the law. The Court also held the Magistrate responsible for allowing Agrwal’s detention to continue without independently examining the case or recording reasons for remand.

“Upon examining the entire case and the record, we find that the Police have attempted to characterize the Petitioner as some gangster, history-sheeter or an extortionist without having an iota of evidence in that regard and even without an investigation into genuineness of complaint. Even a simple analysis and investigation of the messages and communication on record reveal that the Petitioner was alleging wrongdoings by the partners of the Developers. The Police have entirely failed to do so. It clearly appears to us that the Respondent No.2 in connivance with the Developer/ Intervener, with a view to prevent the Petitioner from pursuing his lawful remedy has falsely implicated him in the present crime by clearly con-writing a story of alleged extortion.” (Para 24)

“We find that, the learned Magistrate of the 64th Court was also responsible for the Petitioner’s wrongful detention. No reasons have been recorded for justifying continuation of remand of the Petitioner. We find that the Ld. Magistrate has failed to independently apply his mind and adopted a very casual approach, thereby causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner on account of continued entirely unlawful arrest and detention.” (Para 25)

The bench directed the State to pay the compensation within two weeks of the judgment being uploaded to the High Court’s official website. It further ordered the State to initiate strict action, including the immediate suspension of the concerned police officers, and directed the High Court Registry to place the judgment before its Administrative Committee for appropriate action against the Magistrate or Magistrates who authorised the remand.

Arrest following a property dispute

Agrwal, a resident of Walkeshwar in South Mumbai, had been appointed as the constituted attorney of his mother-in-law, Asawari K. Kulkarni, to negotiate with the developers of a housing society undergoing redevelopment. The dispute concerned the terms on which her flat would be sold or replaced following redevelopment.

According to the judgment, Agrwal was negotiating with Seth and Sonal Developers over the sale of the flat for approximately ₹1.64 crore. On August 4, 2017, the developers handed him ₹2 lakh as an advance during a meeting at their office. The police arrived shortly after he received the money, handcuffed him and took him to Azad Maidan Police Station.

The developers subsequently accused him of extortion, leading to the registration of FIR No. 243 of 2017 under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribed a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment. Agrwal was arrested on August 4 and spent six days in police custody, followed by 20 days in judicial custody. He was eventually granted bail by the Sessions Court on August 28, 2017, after being unable to secure an earlier hearing on his bail application.

Appearing in person before the High Court, Agrwal challenged the legality of his arrest and detention, alleging that the police had acted in collusion with the developers and manipulated documents to implicate him in a false extortion case.

Court exposes discrepancies in police records

The High Court’s scrutiny of the case record revealed serious inconsistencies in the police documentation, including discrepancies in the station diary entries, the FIR and the arrest form. The police claimed that a complaint against Agrwal had been lodged as early as June 23, 2017. However, the Court noted that an RTI response from the police stated that no such complaint had been received. The FIR also failed to name the complainant in the relevant record, while the charge sheet stated that a copy of the alleged earlier complaint had not been annexed.

The Court also found that the arrest form originally recorded August 5, 2017, at four places, with the date overwritten as August 4 at three of them. The arrest registration number continued to reflect August 5, exposing a discrepancy that the police had failed to explain. Other mandatory fields, including those relating to the medical examination, grounds of arrest and intimation to Agrwal’s wife, were left blank despite other records referring to these procedures.

The bench also took exception to the police having described Agrwal as a recidivist likely to abscond if released on bail, despite there being no material on record establishing criminal antecedents. The Court found these discrepancies significant and concluded that the police had attempted to construct a case portraying Agrwal as a criminal without first verifying the complaint’s genuineness. The judgment observed that the documents indicated a deliberate attempt to implicate him in a false extortion case and justify an arrest that had already taken place.

Police failed to establish why arrest was necessary

The bench found that the police had made no meaningful effort to establish why the ₹2 lakh had changed hands. Given Agrwal’s documented role as his mother-in-law’s attorney in the redevelopment negotiations, the Court held that a preliminary inquiry could have clarified the nature of the transaction. Instead, the police arrested him without adequately investigating the circumstances or establishing why custodial interrogation was necessary.

The Court held that the police had failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governed the notice-of-appearance procedure applicable to the case. The notice was served after Agrwal’s arrest, and there was no evidence that he had been given a genuine opportunity to comply with it before the police resorted to arrest.

Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the bench reiterated that the power to arrest cannot be exercised merely to question a person. Police must establish why arrest is necessary and why the investigation cannot proceed without taking the person into custody. The bench found no satisfactory justification in the record. It concluded that the arrest and subsequent remand were high-handed and arbitrary, carried out without application of mind and in violation of basic statutory safeguards.

The Court was particularly critical of the conduct of the police sub-inspector, finding that the officer had exploited his position and used the police machinery to advance the developer’s interests against Agrwal. The judgment stated that the record indicated collusion between the officer and the developer, with the apparent objective of preventing Agrwal from pursuing his lawful remedies and exposing alleged wrongdoing.

Magistrate also held responsible for unlawful detention

The Court did not confine its criticism to the police. It also held that the Magistrate of the 64th Court, Mumbai, had contributed to Agrwal’s wrongful detention by repeatedly authorising custody without adequately examining the record or recording reasons. Agrwal was remanded to police custody on August 5, 2017, with the remand continued on August 8. On August 10, he was sent to judicial custody, which continued despite the absence of cogent reasons recorded in the remand orders. His bail application was also adjourned before he eventually obtained relief from the Sessions Court.

The bench found that the Magistrate had failed to independently apply his mind and had adopted a casual approach, resulting in the continuation of an entirely unlawful arrest and detention. The Court directed the Registry to place the judgment before the High Court’s Administrative Committee for appropriate action against the judicial officers who dealt with the remand applications and bail proceedings in August 2017.

State ordered to compensate victim

Holding that the unlawful arrest had caused Agrwal substantial financial loss as well as lasting damage to his reputation and credibility, the High Court allowed his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State has been directed to pay ₹5 lakh within two weeks. The Court also ordered the initiation of strict action against the concerned police officers, including immediate suspension, and stated that the proportionate compensation could be recovered from their salaries, if so advised.

The judgment underscores that an arrest cannot be justified merely by the registration of an FIR or the subsequent grant of remand. Police officers must comply with statutory safeguards and establish the necessity of arrest, while magistrates must independently scrutinise the grounds for detention rather than mechanically authorising custody. The petition was allowed in these terms, and the connected intervention application filed by the developer was disposed of.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar

Punjab & Haryana HC: Users must be given blocking notices immediately; sets aside Facebook page takedown

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

The post Bombay High Court orders ₹5 lakh compensation for man illegally arrested, slams police-developer collusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case began with a mobilisation against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Das and Ranka were among those who attempted to stage the protest at Jantar Mantar after the site had been de-notified as a designated protest venue. According to The Indian Express, the group entered the site by climbing over a locked iron gate, unfurled the national flag and raised slogans before being detained.

What followed was a series of preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), culminating in the leaders’ remand to judicial custody on October 14. Their detention continued even after the defence furnished sureties, with the Special Executive Magistrate finding those sureties unacceptable and directing the two leaders to produce fresh ones.

On October 21, Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj ordered their release after they furnished personal bonds and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each and submitted written undertakings promising not to call for protests at Jantar Mantar until the site is notified as a designated protest venue in accordance with law.

The sequence raises serious questions about the use of preventive powers against political mobilisation: two leaders remained in custody after their sureties were rejected, while the subsequent order found that bonds and written undertakings could adequately secure the maintenance of peace.

पूरे देश में खुशी की लहर है क्योंकि सौरभ दास और आशुतोष रंका जेल से छूट गए हैं। https://t.co/E8kJNHXdkr

— Cockroaches of India (@CJP_for_India) October 21, 2026

All smiles https://t.co/LeTLoFtf92

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 21, 2026

#WATCH | Delhi: CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are being taken from Mandir Marg Police Station after the SEM Court has ordered their release.

They were produced before the SEM Court after 2 days in judicial custody. https://t.co/eaNnewdW13

— ANI (@ANI) October 21, 2026

Delhi: Delhi Police’s Crime Branch has issued summons to CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, directing them to appear at its Rajouri Garden office to record their statements.

(Visuals from outside the Crime Branch office) https://t.co/VBdVZx9Fla

— IANS (@ians_india) October 22, 2026

Congratulations to the entire team of @Cockroachisback!

And as always, kudos to Abhik Chimni, Pranjal, Moksha & their entire team!

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 21, 2026

A big shoutout to Advocate Abhik Chimni and his entire team, including Pranjal Abrol, Moksha Sharma , and Kartik Venu, for their invaluablesupport.

Heartfelt thanks to Advocates Abhisht Hela, Pushp Sharma and Angad for handling SEM court since day one.

Advocate Shivangi Sharma for standing by me and helping me.

Last but certainly not least, my sincere gratitude to the seniors (& their teams) in the profession who guided us with their valuable legal-inputs and instructions.

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 21, 2026

Sureties rejected, custody extended by two days

The immediate circumstances of the extended detention are central to the case. On October 19, after the initial five-day period of judicial custody ended, the Delhi Police sought a further five days of custody, alleging that the two leaders had violated peace bonds executed on October 11 by mobilising people for protests at Jantar Mantar and other non-designated locations.

The Special Executive Magistrate extended their custody by two days, until October 21, while rejecting the sureties produced by the defence. The order cited an apparent mismatch between one surety’s photograph on the bond and the photograph on their Aadhaar card. In the case of the other surety, the magistrate recorded that the person could not provide satisfactory answers to basic questions, including details of Das’s parentage and address.

The magistrate concluded that the sureties had no sufficient control over the two leaders to ensure their appearance before the court. The order also stated that the leaders had allegedly breached their earlier bonds and that their assurance that they would not repeat the conduct did not inspire confidence.

As reported by The Indian Express, the magistrate relied on police submissions concerning the likelihood of a breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity. The defence, however, disputed the basis for continued detention, arguing that the two leaders had made no fresh calls for protests after October 10 and had gone to Jantar Mantar individually.

Their counsel, advocate Abhik Chimni, also questioned the rejection of the sureties and the continued detention. The defence sought their release and maintained that there was no concrete basis to conclude that they posed an ongoing threat to public safety.

The rejection of the sureties meant that the two leaders remained in judicial custody until the next hearing, despite the defence’s efforts to secure their release. The two-day extension came after the police had sought a longer period of detention.

Release comes with an undertaking not to call protests

On October 21, the police again sought a three-day extension of judicial custody, arguing that apprehensions of a breach of peace persisted in light of the leaders’ statements and subsequent conduct. The prosecution also cited remarks allegedly made by an associate while the two were being taken to Tihar Jail, claiming that the comments undermined the authority of the Special Executive Magistrate’s court. Chimni tendered an unconditional verbal apology and assured the court that such conduct would not recur.

The magistrate declined to prolong their custody, holding that the preventive measures contemplated under Section 135(3) BNSS could be adequately secured through bonds for keeping the peace, supported by the written undertakings furnished that day.

The undertakings were specific. Das and Ranka promised not to commit any breach of peace and stated that they would not make calls for protests at Jantar Mantar until the site is notified as a designated protest venue in accordance with law. They also expressed faith in the judiciary and undertook that any protest they undertook would remain within the constitutional framework.

The magistrate directed the two leaders to furnish personal bonds and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each and ordered their release after being satisfied with the sureties. A release warrant was issued to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Tihar. Both leaders were directed to appear at every hearing and comply strictly with the conditions of their bonds and undertakings.

The matter is listed for further proceedings on October 23 at 3 PM.

The complete order may be read below:

Detailed piece may be read here.

Related:

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

UN experts condemn India’s crackdown on youth-led protests, flag 7,000 detentions and alleged sexual abuse

JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual

India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis

The post CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a judgment dated October 5, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya set aside an intimation issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, directing Meta Platforms Inc. to block the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited. The Court found that the officer was below the minimum rank prescribed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and that the company had not been furnished a copy of the notice or informed of the grounds for the blocking.

The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to instruct Meta to restore the Facebook page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. It further directed that any future intimation issued by an authorised officer seeking to block content on the page must be shared with the company immediately after being sent to the intermediary.

Blocking notice issued by an officer below prescribed rank

The petition was filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited after its verified Facebook page was blocked in India on August 21, 2026, pursuant to an intimation issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The company argued that it had received neither prior notice nor a copy of the intimation sent to Meta, leaving it unaware of the reasons and material underlying the blocking action. Its directors learnt of the restriction through a notification on Facebook stating that access to the page had been restricted in India pursuant to a notice from the government or law enforcement authorities.

The State submitted that one of the company’s directors, Mohit Verma, was an accused in a criminal case registered under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the State, he had allegedly been posting videos and sending messages through the Facebook page to intimidate the victim and witnesses in the case. The Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, had consequently issued the intimation directing Meta to disable access to the page.

The State maintained that the notice complied with the 2021 Rules because the Superintendent of Police had been authorised by the state government as a delegatee. It also argued that the company could seek restoration of its page through Meta’s grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the Rules.

The High Court rejected the State’s defence on the question of the officer’s authority. Examining Rule 3(1)(d), Justice Dahiya noted that a reasoned written intimation seeking the removal or disabling of unlawful content must be issued by an officer authorised by the appropriate government. In cases involving the police administration, the Rules specifically require the authorised officer to be of a rank not below Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), with specific authorisation from the government.

The Court found that the intimation in the present case had been issued by the Superintendent of Police, who was concededly below the prescribed rank. It held that where statutory rules specify the minimum rank of the officer empowered to exercise a particular authority, that power cannot be delegated to an officer of a lower rank.

The State had failed to identify any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation or refer to an order authorising the Superintendent of Police to issue the intimation. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the officer had validly exercised delegated authority. Describing the action as an arbitrary exercise of power, the Court held that the intimation dated August 21 was without jurisdiction and was not required to have been acted upon by Meta.

“In the instant case, the intimation to the intermediary/sixth respondent for blocking access to the petitioner’s Facebook page, dated 21.08.2026, has been sent by the Superintendent of Police, who is concededly below the rank of DIGP. Accordingly, it is in violation of clause (d) to sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules requiring that the authorised officer shall not be below the rank of DIGP. Also, once an officer not below a particular rank has been prescribed as the empowered officer under the statutory rules to issue the intimation, there cannot be delegation of such power to any other officer of a lower rank. Therefore, the contention by learned State counsel that the Superintendent of Police has been delegated the power to issue the intimation, cannot be accepted being unsustainable in law. He has not been able to show any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation, nor has any reference been made in the intimation to the order delegating the power. Thus, it is evident that the Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him in issuing the said intimation in flagrant violation of statutory provisions; this is sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power.” (Para 6.3)

The Court also noted that the Rules require such intimations to undergo monthly review by an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the concerned government to ensure that they remain necessary, proportionate and consistent with the law. The State had not demonstrated that the intimation in this case had undergone the prescribed review.

“It further needs a mention that in terms of clause (d) to sub-rule (1) to Rule 3, the Government is required to review every month all intimations issued to intermediaries to ensure that the same are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the provisions of Section 79(3)(b) of the 2000 Act. It has also not been shown that any such review was carried out with respect to the intimation issued in the instant case as more than a month has lapsed since it was issued. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the intimation, dated 21.08.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Police is without jurisdiction, and was not required to be acted upon by the sixth respondent.” (Para 6.3)

Withholding blocking notice undermines natural justice

The judgment also addressed a critical procedural question: whether an affected user can be expected to challenge a blocking decision without being given the notice that led to it. The Court examined the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the 2021 Rules, which requires intermediaries to publish the contact details of their Grievance Officers and provide a mechanism through which users can raise complaints. The Rules prescribe timelines for acknowledging and resolving grievances.

Justice Dahiya observed that although the Rules do not expressly provide for a hearing before the government sends a blocking intimation to an intermediary, the absence of such an express requirement does not dispense with the obligation to disclose the intimation to the affected user.

The Court clarified that whether a pre-decisional hearing was necessary was not an issue before it, since the petitioner had not challenged that aspect of the Rules. Its consideration was instead focused on the right to a meaningful post-decisional hearing through the intermediary’s grievance redressal mechanism. Such a hearing, the Court reasoned, would be ineffective unless the affected user knew that an intimation had been issued, what it contained and what material had been relied upon to justify the action. Without this information, a user would be unable to defend itself or effectively contest the restriction.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023), the High Court reiterated that the core requirements of natural justice include the right to a fair hearing and the right against bias. The Court observed that procedures established by law must be fair and reasonable and cannot disregard these fundamental requirements. It held that the obligation to furnish the intimation must be read into Rule 3(2), even though the provision does not expressly require the government or its agency to notify the affected user before sending the notice to the intermediary.

“Although sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 does not explicitly lay down the requirement for the Government or its agency to notify the user/person responsible for uploading the data or information on the social media page before sending the intimation, it is an essential obligation ingrained in the principles of natural justice and has to be read into the Rule. Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary. This will make the procedure of sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 compliant of the primary tenets of natural justice and constitutionally valid. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been furnished a copy of the intimation dated 21.08.2026, either by the Superintendent of Police or the intermediary and has been kept completely in dark about the whole exercise. In such a situation, approaching the grievance redressal mechanism by it will be a futile exercise and seriously impair its right to defend. Therefore, this Court finds no justifiable ground to relegate the petitioner to the Grievance Officer for resolution of grievance against blocking of its Facebook page.” (Para 6.4)

In the present case, neither the police nor Meta had furnished the company with a copy of the intimation. The Court found that the petitioner had been kept completely in the dark about the blocking exercise, making it unreasonable to direct it to approach Meta’s Grievance Officer as the sole avenue of redress. Without access to the notice and the grounds underlying the action, the grievance redressal process would be futile and would seriously impair the company’s ability to defend itself, the Court held.

Facebook page ordered to be restored

Setting aside the August 21 intimation, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police to instruct Meta to restore the company’s Facebook page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court further directed that if the government identifies information, data or communication links on the page that are prohibited by law and being used for illegal activities, any intimation issued by the authorised officer to the intermediary must be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it is sent.

The ruling underscores that the power to restrict access to online content must be exercised by officers authorised under the statutory framework and in accordance with the safeguards prescribed by law. It also makes clear that the right to challenge a blocking action cannot be meaningful if the affected user is denied access to the very notice on which that action is based. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

The complete judgement may be read below:

Related:

The State Wants the Delete Button: India’s new architecture of digital censorship

Synthetic Content, Three-Hour Compliance and the Risk of Over-Removal: Analysing the IT rules amendments

How big tech is profiting from Hindutva hate music

Meta’s policy shift: Fuelling hate in an era of LGBTQIA+ inclusion

From fact-checking to chaos: How meta’s new moderation model risks eroding trust and democracy

The post Punjab & Haryana HC: Users must be given blocking notices immediately; sets aside Facebook page takedown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For Ajabha and her family, her release marked the end of an agonising wait. For CJP’s Assam team, it was a deeply significant milestone in 2026. But the relief was accompanied by a painful reminder of the many people who remain trapped in detention, separated from their families, their health deteriorating and their futures uncertain. Her freedom is also a reminder of what timely legal assistance can mean to someone who has been left without the resources to fight alone.

From a forgotten case to a sustained legal fight

On September 2, 2024, twenty-eight Bengali-speaking Muslims from Barpeta district were taken into custody and placed in a detention camp. When the CJP team met their families, it learnt that Ajabha’s family had not approached the Gauhati High Court on her behalf. The family was extremely marginalised and lacked the means to pursue the legal remedies available to her. At the family’s request, CJP took up Ajabha’s case, providing legal and paralegal assistance and helping bring her plight before the Gauhati High Court.

Detailed story may be read here.

On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court stayed her deportation and sought the Foreigners Tribunal records to review the order declaring her a foreigner. The legal challenge, however, remained pending, and Ajabha continued to be held at Matia.

Detailed piece may be read here.

The High Court proceedings were crucial, but the immediate reality remained stark: an unwell woman was still confined in a detention camp, separated from her family, with no certainty about when she would return home. Without timely legal intervention, Ajabha could have remained without effective recourse to challenge her situation, while the threat of deportation continued to hang over her.

CJP’s work did not end with bringing her case before the Court. The team continued to stand by Ajabha and her family, pursuing every available avenue to secure her release while her substantive legal battle remained unresolved.

Two years in detention. A new effort to bring her home.

On September 1, 2026, Ajabha completed two years in the Matia Transit Camp. Her illness and prolonged confinement made the urgency of securing her release all the more pressing. Although her case was still pending before the Gauhati High Court, CJP’s Assam team began exploring additional avenues for her release on the grounds of her two years in detention and her deteriorating health. The effort drew upon the Supreme Court’s and Gauhati High Court’s suo-motu proceedings concerning detention during and around the COVID-19 period.

From August onwards, the team intensified its efforts. Alongside its continuing legal work, it counselled family members, visited the detention camp, documented her circumstances and initiated the administrative process required to secure her release. CJP Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh and legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury contacted the relevant authorities and submitted an application through Ajabha’s son. The work that followed was painstaking and often bureaucratic: identifying suitable bailors, verifying their documents and preparing the necessary applications, affidavits and supporting papers for submission to the District Border Police Office.

By October, Ajabha had spent more than two years and one month in detention. After the documents were submitted to the District Border Branch, officials informed the team that they would be forwarded to Guwahati and that the remaining process would depend on a favourable response. A few days later, the team received word that the processing in Guwahati had been completed and that the next steps could begin.

The team continued to follow up with the authorities through the following week. On October 11, the process was finalised for Ajabha’s release on conditional bail. On October 12, the Border Branch informally indicated that transportation difficulties could delay her release, but that an alternative arrangement might make it possible for her to leave the following day. CJP immediately coordinated with the Border Police and Ajabha’s family to ensure that the arrangements could be made. After more than two years of waiting, October 13 would finally bring her home.

October 13: The long journey back to freedom

CJP Team Assam with Ajabha Khatun after being released

The day began before dawn. At 3:40 a.m., Nanda Ghosh, on behalf of CJP’s Assam team, and office driver Ashikul Hussain set out for Barpeta. The journey involved multiple stops: the Border Branch police quarters, the local police station and Ajabha’s home, where family members had to be brought together with the police for the journey to the Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara. They reached Matia at around 9:30 a.m. After completing the required formalities, the team accompanied Ajabha out of the camp and began the return journey to Barpeta.

By around 1:30 p.m., after hours on the road without food, Ajabha, the CJP team and the three police personnel accompanying them stopped to eat. It was a small, ordinary moment, but one that underscored how much had gone into making this day possible. The journey continued to the Barpeta District Border Branch at the Superintendent of Police’s office, where Abhijeet Choudhury had already begun the necessary work. CJP’s Barpeta District DVM, Jafar Ali, and the two bailors were also present.

Once the team arrived, the remaining formalities involving Ajabha and the bailors were completed, and the Border Police handed her over to the bailors. There was one more official requirement. The team accompanied Ajabha, the two bailors and a family member to Barpeta Sadar Police Station, where she is required to report once a week under the conditions of her release. Only after all these formalities were completed could the team finally take Ajabha home.

“The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain.”

As soon as Ajabha got into the car, the weight of her long ordeal began to surface. Overcome with emotion, she struggled to find words to express her gratitude to the CJP team. “Baba, may God bless you all!” she said.

Then, speaking about her time in detention, she described the suffering she had endured. “What can I say about the suffering in that detention camp? It is a hell. The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain!”

But even in that moment of relief, Ajabha was thinking of someone she had left behind. She told the team about Sehera, a visually impaired woman from Barpeta district who remains in the detention camp. Ajabha had cared for her during their time together, bringing her food, washing her clothes and plate, and making her bed.

“Baba, there is a blind woman there who cannot see. She suffers a lot. I used to bring her food, wash her clothes, wash her plate and make her bed. Her name is Sehera. She is from Barpeta district itself, but I don’t know exactly where. I only know her name. Can you please get her released, Baba?”

Ajabha recalled that as she was leaving, Sehera had hugged her and wept. She had asked Ajabha to appeal to the people who had helped secure her release to do the same for her. When I was leaving, she hugged me and cried a lot. She told me to request those who got me released to get her released too. Please get her out of that detention camp just like me. Allah will surely bless you,” Ajabha pleaded.

The request was heartbreaking. After 772 days of confinement, after enduring illness, separation and the uncertainty of her own future, Ajabha’s first concern was for another woman still inside. The CJP team knew Sehera only by name. They assured Ajabha that they would make every effort to trace her and explore the legal avenues available to help secure her release, while acknowledging that they could not guarantee the outcome. Ajabha had finally found her way out. Yet, even as she returned to freedom, she carried with her the anguish of someone who had not.

A village waits. A family welcomes her home.

 

As the sun began to set, the CJP team reached Koetkuchi village with Ajabha. Word of her return had drawn almost the entire village to her home. The moment the car arrived, people rushed forward. Tears, cries and overwhelming emotion filled the scene. After such a long separation, the sight of Ajabha returning home proved almost too much to bear. She fainted several times amid the emotional upheaval.

The team finally handed her over to her family, urging them to take particular care of her physical and mental well-being over the coming days after her prolonged confinement and the strain of the journey. Ajabha’s son, Buddu, works as a migrant labourer in the coal mines of Meghalaya. Unable to be present throughout the release process, he called the team by telephone and expressed his heartfelt gratitude to CJP for helping bring his mother home.

For a family that had spent months grappling with uncertainty and helplessness, her return offered a moment of immense relief. Yet Ajabha knows that her release is conditional and that her case before the Gauhati High Court remains unresolved. Before the team departed, she folded her hands and made one final plea. “I pray that my case ends permanently, Baba, as soon as possible, so that I never have to go to the camp again!”She prayed to Allah for the CJP team.

It was around 9 p.m. when the team finally began its journey home. The day had been long, physically exhausting and emotionally overwhelming. For months, the distress of Ajabha’s family had weighed heavily on the team as it worked to find a way to bring her home. That night, there was finally some relief.

It was not the end of the legal battle. It was not yet the permanent resolution Ajabha desperately wants. But it was a moment when sustained legal work, careful documentation, administrative follow-up and the determination to stand by a marginalised family had helped make a tangible difference.

The fight is not over

Ajabha Khatun’s release is an important milestone for CJP’s Assam team in 2026. It demonstrates the importance of legal assistance that does not stop at filing a petition, but continues through the practical, often exhausting work required to secure relief for a person who may otherwise struggle to navigate the system alone.

Her case also brings into focus the human consequences of prolonged detention for people declared foreigners, particularly those who are ill, economically marginalised and separated from their families while legal proceedings remain pending.

For Ajabha, freedom has meant returning to her village, embracing her family and sleeping once again under the open sky. But her relief remains shadowed by the knowledge that Sehera and others continue to endure detention.

As CJP’s team celebrates Ajabha’s return, it also carries forward the responsibility her plea has placed before it: to try to trace Sehera, explore the available legal remedies and continue working towards relief for those still confined.

After 772 days, Ajabha is home. Her legal case must still reach its conclusion, and the conditions of her release must be respected. For now, a family has its mother back, a village has welcomed one of its own, and a woman who endured the suffering of detention has found the strength to speak for someone still inside. Her freedom is a milestone. Her plea for Sehera is a reminder of the work that remains.

Related:

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

The post After 772 Days in Detention, Ajabha Khatun Returns Home: CJP helps secure her release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Thursday, October 15, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the Superintendent of Police of Bongaon Police District and the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon police station to ensure public order and deploy adequate security so that the CPI(M) could erect its bookstall and sell books during the Durga Puja festivities. The permission extends to a location within a 100-metre radius of the party office, which is situated near the pandal. The police have also been directed to prevent others from disrupting the party’s activities and to submit a compliance report at the next hearing on November 23.

According to the report of LiveLaw, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the dissemination of different political thoughts and ideologies was welcome in a democracy, making it “fruitful, deep-rooted and mature”.

“It is expected of the present ruling dispensation to create an atmosphere where persons owing allegiance to different political ideologies will not hesitate to voice their views,” the judge said.

The observations came amid allegations that the CPI(M) had been prevented from setting up its traditional bookstall while a stall belonging to the Hindu Jagran Manch was allowed to occupy the area. The Left party told the Court that it had been setting up bookstalls near Durga Puja pandals for decades, with its petition referring to a tradition extending over approximately 50 to 60 years. It alleged that the Hindu Jagran Manch had obstructed its efforts to erect a temporary structure while operating its own stall in the vicinity without comparable interference.

Court questions unequal treatment

The matter came before the Court on Wednesday, October 14, when Justice Bhattacharya questioned the State’s position on the CPI(M)’s request for permission. As reported by LiveLaw, the judge asked why the party should be prevented from setting up its stall if other organisations were permitted to erect structures along the same road. “I don’t deny that permission is needed. But if you are allowing one group then allow the others as well,” the Court observed.

Questioning the apparent disparity, Justice Bhattacharya also asked, “How is this stall (Hindu Jagran Manch) allowed? It is a huge stall.”

The State government contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the dispute concerned the use of land belonging to the Public Works Department (PWD), rather than police inaction. It maintained that informing the police of the proposed bookstall did not amount to obtaining permission from the competent authority.

The State further argued that both groups had lodged FIRs, disputing the contention that the matter arose from police inaction. The Court, however, questioned whether the alleged obstruction and removal of the CPI(M)’s proposed structure warranted police intervention. It also emphasised the need for a uniform policy governing the erection of stalls on PWD land.

Justice Bhattacharya directed the investigating officer to report on whether other stalls had been established along the road without permission. The CPI(M) was also granted liberty to place additional facts and documents on record through a supplementary affidavit.

Appeal fails to halt order

The police subsequently challenged Justice Bhattacharya’s Wednesday order. According to PTI, a Division Bench presided over by Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge disposed of the appeal filed by the officer-in-charge of Bongaon police station on Thursday. The State respondents’ request to stay the operation of the order was also refused by Justice Bhattacharya.

The subsequent directions place the responsibility on the police not merely to maintain order but to ensure that the CPI(M) can exercise its right to political expression without being driven out of a space it has traditionally used.

The dispute raises a question that extends beyond the placement of a seasonal bookstall: whether access to public spaces and the ability to communicate political ideas are being governed by consistent rules or by the relative influence of competing organisations.

Related:

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Bombay High Court orders Maharashtra DGP to review arrest forms, flags failure to communicate grounds of arrest

‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune

The post Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai Police have spread themselves across IIT Bombay, hours ahead of a “March to IIT” call given by Ambedkarite leaders from AIISCA and other orgs who’ve been striking in support of Sahil Wakode’s parents. Two weeks since they’ve been on a hunger strike, @frontline_india https://t.co/SNyNpkjshl

— Greeshma Kuthar (@jeegujja) October 14, 2026

According to The Federal, police detained protesters demonstrating outside IIT Bombay following the call by Sahil’s father, Ravindra Wakode. IANS also reported the detention of demonstrators supporting the family. The police response was striking: a heavy deployment across the campus, restrictions on entry and the detention of people seeking to present their demands to the administration. Instead of facilitating a meeting with the delegation, the authorities prevented the protesters from proceeding.

#WATCH | Police detained protesters demonstrating outside #IITBombay over the death of second-year BTech student Sahil Wakode. The protest followed a call by his father, Ravindra Wakode, under the slogan ‘Chalo IIT Bombay.’ https://t.co/so5K3m4toG

— The Federal (@TheFederal_News) October 14, 2026

Mumbai, Maharashtra: Several organisations staged a protest outside IIT Bombay in support of student Sahil Wakode. Mumbai Police detained protesters demonstrating in support of the student https://t.co/1tIYTpjsff

— IANS (@ians_india) October 14, 2026

The question is unavoidable: if the administration has nothing to hide, why was a delegation seeking a hearing met with police restrictions and detention rather than an opportunity to be heard?

Police refuse entry, even as family seeks answers

Posts put across X by Greeshma Kuthar, an independent journalist, showed that police personnel had spread across IIT Bombay ahead of the march and were refusing entry to the campus. When asked why Sahil’s parents themselves were not being allowed in, a police officer reportedly responded, “Why will they come here?”

Mumbai Police have spread themselves across IIT Bombay, hours ahead of a “March to IIT” call given by Ambedkarite leaders from AIISCA and other orgs who’ve been striking in support of Sahil Wakode’s parents. Two weeks since they’ve been on a hunger strike, @frontline_india https://t.co/SNyNpkjshl

— Greeshma Kuthar (@jeegujja) October 14, 2026

The reported exchange is particularly disturbing given that Sahil’s parents have been undertaking a hunger strike since the past two weeks to demand accountability following their son’s death. Their struggle has not been met with the institutional engagement they seek. Instead, their supporters were reportedly prevented from entering the campus and approaching its administration.

Dalit-Bahujan students deserve more than institutional assurances

According to Maharashtra Times, student and Ambedkarite organisations have demanded an impartial inquiry committee, a clear response from IIT Bombay’s director and concrete action on alleged caste discrimination and student safety. They have also raised broader concerns about institutional discrimination, including previous disputes involving reservation rosters.

The protesters are asking a question that the institute cannot afford to evade: why do Dalit-Bahujan students continue to raise concerns about discrimination and safety within an institution that is expected to uphold equal opportunity?

An investigation into Sahil’s death must establish the facts independently and fairly. At the same time, the administration has a responsibility to address allegations of discrimination, examine institutional failures where evidence warrants it, and ensure that students’ complaints receive a credible response.

These obligations are not mutually exclusive. Calling for an impartial inquiry does not prejudge its findings. Demanding accountability does not amount to obstructing due process. And raising concerns about caste discrimination cannot reasonably be dismissed merely because they are being voiced through protest.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

The post Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a report by The Indian Express, Ansari was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He was allegedly being taken to Sahodra police station when he sustained serious head injuries.

The suspended personnel have been identified as sub-inspectors Ravi Shankar Kumar and Arun Kumar, and constables Saudagar Kumar Yadav, Raj Kumar Rishi, Kundan Kumar and Suman Kumar. All six were posted at Sahodra police station and have been suspended with immediate effect, police said.

In a statement issued on Monday, Bettiah Police said Ansari had jumped from a moving police vehicle while being taken into custody, resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to a subdivisional hospital in Narkatiaganj and subsequently referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Bettiah, where doctors declared him dead on arrival.

Ansari’s family has rejected the police version of events and alleged that he was assaulted in custody.

Following the death of Dilshad Ansari in police custody in #Bettiah, #Bihar, six policemen including the Station House Officer have been suspended. The family alleges that Dilshad was beaten and his death occurred due to a head injury.
The Bihar Police should conduct a fair investigation into the matter.

— Siraj Noorani (@sirajnoorani) October 12, 2026

दिलशाद अंसारी की मौत पर कई गंभीर सवाल हैं। आखिर उस रात क्या हुआ? @Bettiah_Police से माँग है कि CCTV फुटेज, पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट और सभी साक्ष्यों के आधार पर निष्पक्ष जाँच हो। सच्चाई सामने आए, पीड़ित परिवार को इंसाफ मिले! @bihar_police

#JusticeForDilshadAnsari https://t.co/beZXydymQg

— Sartaj Alam Champarni سرتاج (@YouthSartajAlam) October 12, 2026

Family disputes police account

Speaking to the media, his wife, Nagma Khatoon, said a police team took him from their home at around 2 am on October 12. She alleged that the officers assured the family he would be released by morning after questioning. The family later received a call from Banuchhapar police station asking them to reach GMCH in Bettiah, reportedly on the grounds that Ansari had fallen ill. They found him dead on arrival at the hospital, she said. Ansari’s father, Akhbar Ansari, alleged that police personnel had struck his son hard on the head and called for a thorough inquiry into his death. 

Ansari, a resident of Badhayi Tola in Auraiya, under the Banuchhapar police station area, was named as an accused in NDPS case number 65/25, registered on August 8, 2025. Ansari leaves behind his wife and their six-month-old daughter. His family is seeking a high-level investigation into the death.

Calls for accountability

The incident has also drawn criticism from former Rajya Sabha MP Ali Anwar, who heads the All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz. In a statement, reported India Today, Anwar urged Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary to take action against the police personnel allegedly responsible for Ansari’s death.

Citing accounts from social activists in West Champaran, Anwar questioned the claim that Ansari had jumped from a moving vehicle, arguing that the reported absence of injuries to his arms and legs warranted further scrutiny. He also urged the National Human Rights Commission to intervene and called for ex gratia compensation for Ansari’s family.

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Protect the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How September’s festivals became stages for anti-Muslim hate

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

The post Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We’d like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed, making it clear that the police would be required to answer the allegations. After Jaising informed the Court that advance notice had been given to the Solicitor General, the Chief Justice indicated that the petition would be listed on Thursday alongside the matter concerning the alleged police action.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also mentioned a contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective, alleging that the police had assaulted journalists in violation of the Supreme Court’s October 10 order protecting media personnel covering the protests from harassment. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh mentioned a similar petition.

The NWMI’s petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, brings a distinct constitutional question before the Court: whether journalists can be physically restrained, detained or removed while documenting the exercise of State power, without a specific legal basis and without demonstrable necessity. It argues that the issue extends beyond the treatment of individual reporters to the institutional freedom of the press and the public’s right to receive information about events unfolding in public spaces.

A fresh petition following repeated allegations of police action against journalists

The petition, filed on October 12, places the alleged incidents within a sequence of protests, police restrictions and judicial interventions in Delhi during October 2026. It records allegations of journalists being detained despite displaying press identification, physically dragged or pushed, transported away from reporting locations and, in some instances, prevented from documenting police action.

The immediate context includes demonstrations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. According to the petition, restrictions imposed around the protests affected journalists’ access to the sites, their ability to observe police operations and their capacity to transmit contemporaneous reports, photographs and recordings.

The petition refers to reports concerning journalists associated with Scroll, Newslaundry, Reuters, Business Standard, BOOMLive, The Quint, The News Minute, The Indian Express and other media organisations. It also recounts allegations that journalists were detained at locations removed from the protest site, notwithstanding their professional identification, and that some were transported to police facilities before being released.

These accounts form the factual basis of the petitioner’s case; they are allegations and reported incidents that require examination and verification. The constitutional question raised, however, is not confined to whether a particular detention was justified. It concerns the standards that must govern police conduct towards journalists when public-order measures are being implemented and the press is attempting to document those very measures.

The petition argues that the distinction between a protester and a journalist cannot be erased merely because both are present in the same public space. A journalist’s proximity to a demonstration may be necessary to observe, record and verify events. Treating that proximity as sufficient grounds for detention or forcible removal, it contends, risks converting the act of reporting into a basis for coercive State action.

Women journalists and the question of bodily integrity

The petition places particular emphasis on allegations involving women journalists, including physical handling, dragging, detention and confinement while they were performing their professional duties. It refers to complaints made by three women journalists alleging sexual harassment by Delhi Police personnel during demonstrations near Jantar Mantar on October 3. According to the petition, Delhi Police acknowledged receipt of the complaints and referred them to the Crime Branch for inquiry. The National Human Rights Commission subsequently took suo-motu cognisance of the reported allegations and sought a detailed report from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

The NWMI argues that these incidents must be considered alongside subsequent reports of women journalists being physically handled or detained while covering protests on October 10 and 11. It contends that the treatment of women journalists raises concerns not only about press freedom but also about bodily integrity, dignity, personal liberty and their equal ability to participate in the profession.

The petition’s emphasis on women journalists is not merely a request for a gender-specific administrative precaution. It places their safety within the constitutional framework of equality and dignity. Physical coercion, intimidation or arbitrary confinement, the petitioner argues, can impair a journalist’s ability to work on equal terms and create a particular chilling effect on women reporting from public spaces.

The reliefs sought therefore extend beyond a general prohibition on interference with journalists. NWMI seeks specific safeguards against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal of women journalists engaged in bona fide newsgathering, including where their presence at or proximity to a protest is the only apparent basis for the action.

Supreme Court’s earlier direction and allegations of continued interference

A central feature of the petition is the Supreme Court’s order dated October 11, passed in connected proceedings concerning restrictions and alleged illegal detentions during the protests. According to NWMI, the Court recorded an assurance from the Solicitor General that journalists, lawyers and other professionals would not be impeded in discharging their professional duties.

Paragraph 16(f) of the order states: “Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.”

The petition argues that this direction must operate as an effective safeguard on the ground, rather than remain confined to an assurance given before the Court. It alleges that journalists continued to face detention, coercive removal and obstruction despite the direction, including incidents in which reporters displayed press identification but were nevertheless placed in police vehicles or taken away from reporting locations.

The petitioner’s case is that the continuation of such incidents exposes the limits of a general judicial direction when it is not accompanied by a clear operational framework. Without defined procedures, accountability mechanisms and preservation of evidence, the petition contends, compliance may depend on the discretion of individual officers rather than an enforceable institutional obligation.

This is also the basis on which NWMI distinguishes its petition from the existing proceedings concerning restrictions on transport, alleged illegal detention and contempt. It argues that those proceedings do not comprehensively settle the standards governing police interaction with journalists or provide forward-looking safeguards against a recurrence of the alleged conduct.

The petition consequently asks the Court to move beyond reiterating the general principle that journalists must not be obstructed and to establish a framework that specifies how that protection is to be implemented, monitored and enforced.

Article 19(1)(a): Press freedom begins before publication

The principal constitutional argument concerns Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. NWMI contends that this freedom cannot be confined to the final act of publishing a report. It must also protect the processes through which information is obtained, observed, documented, verified and communicated.

The argument is significant because reporting on protests and police action depends upon access to the places where events unfold. If journalists are prevented from witnessing detentions, dispersals or crowd-control operations, their ability to report on the exercise of public power is impaired before a story can even be written or published. The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s press-freedom jurisprudence, including Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Sakal Papers v. Union of India, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India and Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal. It also invokes Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh in support of its broader constitutional submissions.

Drawing on this line of authority, NWMI argues that freedom of the press encompasses the ability to gather and disseminate information concerning matters of public importance, alongside the public’s corresponding interest in receiving that information. The petition’s central proposition is that a journalist cannot report what the State prevents her from witnessing. Where police action obstructs newsgathering, the resulting injury is not limited to the reporter’s professional inconvenience; it may also deprive the public of information necessary to scrutinise the conduct of public authorities.

The petitioner accordingly argues that observation cannot be equated with participation. The mere presence of a journalist near protesters, possession of recording equipment, questioning of officials or documentation of police action cannot, by itself, justify detention or forcible removal.

Articles 14 and 21: Arbitrariness, liberty and dignity

NWMI also invokes Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Under Article 14, the petition challenges the alleged indiscriminate treatment of journalists and protesters as interchangeable categories, without an individualised assessment of the circumstances or the legal basis for restricting a journalist’s movement. It contends that coercive action unsupported by a specific legal justification, recorded necessity or proportionate response is arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.

The Article 21 challenge addresses the consequences of physical handling, assault, intimidation, detention and confinement. The petition argues that these actions implicate bodily integrity, dignity and personal liberty, particularly where women journalists are concerned.

Article 19(1)(d), which protects the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, forms another part of the challenge. NWMI contends that transporting journalists away from reporting locations or preventing them from accessing public spaces can interfere with their freedom of movement as well as their ability to carry out professional duties.

Read together, the four constitutional guarantees form the foundation of the petition’s case: police action against journalists must have a lawful basis, must not be arbitrary or disproportionate, and must not needlessly impair their ability to report on matters of public importance. The petition does not claim that journalists are exempt from generally applicable laws or lawful crowd-control measures. Rather, it seeks to prevent their professional activity from being treated, without more, as grounds for coercive action.

An independent inquiry and preservation of police records

Among the petition’s most consequential prayers is a request for an independent, time-bound mechanism to investigate allegations of detention, physical violence, injury, coercive removal, intimidation and obstruction of journalists. NWMI seeks identification of the personnel involved, examination of individual and supervisory responsibility, and recommendations for disciplinary or other action in accordance with law. It also asks that the mechanism consider appropriate compensation and remedial measures.

The petition stresses that an inquiry cannot be effective if the evidence necessary to reconstruct the incidents is not preserved. It seeks strict and demonstrable compliance with the Supreme Court’s October 11 direction, including preservation and disclosure of records relating to incidents involving journalists from October 10 onwards.

The records specifically identified include CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, police videography, wireless communications, duty rosters, deployment records, vehicle logs, detention records and medical records. The requested disclosure is intended to establish not merely whether a journalist was detained or injured, but also the circumstances in which the action occurred: who authorised it, which personnel participated, what directions were issued, what legal grounds were recorded, where the journalist was taken and whether any recording equipment or journalistic data was interfered with.

This demand for evidence preservation is central to the petition’s accountability argument. Where the alleged wrongdoers are public officials acting during crowd-control operations, an inquiry that does not independently establish the chain of events and responsibility may leave critical questions unanswered. NWMI therefore seeks a process capable of examining both the conduct of individual officers and the supervisory structure within which the alleged actions occurred.

Binding guidelines sought for police interaction with journalists

The petition asks the Supreme Court to frame, or direct the framing of, binding guidelines governing the interaction between police and media professionals during protests, public assemblies, crowd-control operations and other events of public importance. The proposed framework is intended to address the practical circumstances in which journalists encounter police personnel and to reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions at the scene.

Among the safeguards sought are:

• Identification of police personnel: Visible identification to enable officers involved in an incident to be identified and held accountable.
• Recognition of journalists: Recognition of press credentials without making formal accreditation the sole test of whether a person is engaged in bona fide journalistic activity.
• Standards governing force: Clear thresholds regulating the use of force against journalists performing professional duties.
• Recorded reasons for detention or removal: A requirement that coercive action be supported by specific, recorded and proportionate grounds.
• Access to assistance: Immediate access to legal counsel and the journalist’s editorial organisation.
• Medical assistance: Appropriate medical attention where injury or physical force is involved.
• Protection of equipment and data: Safeguards against interference with journalistic devices, recordings and other professional material.
• Evidence preservation: Retention of contemporaneous records necessary to investigate complaints and establish responsibility.
• Gender-specific safeguards: Protection of women journalists against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal while engaged in bona fide newsgathering.

The petition also seeks interim protection pending its final disposal, asking the Court to ensure that journalists are not assaulted, threatened, detained, transported, removed or otherwise obstructed except under authority of law and on a specific, recorded and proportionate basis.

The proposed safeguards would, if granted, address both immediate protection and the institutional procedures governing police conduct. They would also provide a framework against which future allegations could be assessed.

The constitutional question before the Court

The proceedings raise a question that extends beyond the immediate allegations arising from the Delhi protests: what practical protection does press freedom provide when journalists are attempting to document the actions of the authorities themselves?

The power to regulate assemblies and maintain public order does not, by itself, resolve the distinct question of how journalists may be treated while reporting on those measures. The NWMI petition argues that the exercise of such powers must remain subject to constitutional standards and that restrictions on journalists cannot rest merely on their presence near a protest or their attempt to record events.

Its demand is therefore both preventive and remedial. The petitioner seeks investigation into the incidents already reported, preservation of evidence, identification of those responsible and a binding framework intended to prevent similar allegations from recurring.

Detailed reports on the anti-EC protest may be read here, here and here.

Related:

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

The post Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.