Dehradun, July 22 -- The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday issued notices and sought a response from the authorities concerned in the state government within four weeks over the detention of Uttarakhand Parivartan Party (UPP) president Prabhat Dhyani, who was stopped by the state police while travelling to New Delhi to participate in activist Sonam Wangchuk's "Sansad Chalo" march on July 19 and released on July 20. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah directed the Uttarakhand government authorities concerned to explain the legal grounds for Dhyani's detention on July 19 and questioned the jurisdiction of the state police in preventing him from travelling to Delhi. The next hearing in the matter has been fixed for September 16, 2026. The court was hearing a petition challenging Dhyani's detention. The petition was filed by Lal Mani, secretary of the UPP,, seeking his production before the high court. According to the plea, Dhyani, the national president of the UPP, was allegedly detained at Rishikesh railway station at around 5.15 pm on July 19 while he was boarding a train for New Delhi. He was on his way to participate in a peaceful solidarity march at Jantar Mantar with climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. The petition alleged that Dhyani was detained by the Railway Police and Rishikesh Police and was later taken into custody by the Ramnagar Police. Snigdha Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner, said notices have been issued to respondents and they have been directed to submit their responses in four weeks. The respondents include the Uttarakhand government, through its Principal Secretary, Home, DGP, Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, SSP Dehradun, Station House Officer, Police Station Ramnagar, Nainital and Government Railway Police through its Officiating Officer, Rishikesh. Tiwari said during Tuesday's hearing, the court questioned the legal basis of the detention and sought to know why an adult man in his 60s had been detained in the first place. Tiwari said the state's counsel sought to justify the detention by citing Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires people to comply with lawful directions issued by police officers. The state also argued that violation of a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS is a cognisable offence that can be committed anywhere in the country....