NEW DELHI, Oct. 12 -- The Delhi High Court on Monday questioned Delhi Police over the alleged illegal confinement of civil rights activist Nadeem Khan ahead of a protest at Jantar Mantar, asking what legal authority permitted officers to enter his premises and restrict his movement merely because permission for the demonstration had been denied.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma issued notice to Delhi Police on Khan's petition challenging his alleged detention on September 29 and directed the authorities to file a status report within two weeks. The court observed that while police had the authority to deny permission for a demonstration, such refusal did not automatically justify restricting an individual's liberty.
"How can you enter the house of this man? You have the right to conduct your duties, but how can you do it in such a way?" the bench orally asked the police counsel. Questioning the legal basis for the alleged confinement, it sought to know under which provision the authorities could restrict Khan's movement.
���������� ������������������ ������������ ������������
Khan, national secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), alleged that officers from Shaheen Bagh police station entered his residence and office at the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind headquarters in Abul Fazal Enclave on September 29 and prevented him from attending a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar.
Appearing for Khan, advocate Shahrukh Alam submitted that police personnel arrived around 9.30 am without producing any written notice, detention order or other legal authorisation. She alleged that the officers remained on the premises until approximately 5.30 pm, effectively preventing Khan from leaving for the demonstration.
Referring to photographs, Alam argued that the presence of police personnel throughout the day amounted to unlawful confinement, even though no formal arrest had been recorded. She maintained that the officers had entered the premises without justification and that Khan had subsequently been subjected to repeated surveillance and harassment.
The counsel told the court that the alleged restrictions continued beyond September 29. She referred to an incident on October 2, when Khan was travelling to attend to his ailing mother and allegedly received a police call seeking information about his whereabouts. Although he was not prevented from travelling on that occasion, she submitted that the repeated inquiries created an atmosphere of intimidation.
������������ �������� ������������������
Delhi Police disputed the allegations, maintaining that Khan had not been detained and that officers had visited the premises only to make inquiries and monitor his movements.
The police counsel submitted that permission for the September 29 demonstration had been denied, but authorities subsequently received information suggesting that Khan intended to participate despite the refusal. Officers were therefore deployed to monitor the situation, the counsel said.
According to the police, the personnel left the premises around 5.30 pm and did not subsequently visit Khan. The authorities maintained that no formal detention had taken place.
The bench, however, questioned whether the refusal of permission for a demonstration could justify the measures described during the hearing. It sought an explanation of the legal provisions authorising the alleged restrictions and asked police to place their position on record.
���������� ���������� ������������ ������������
During the hearing, the court recorded the police's submission that officers had been deployed only to maintain surveillance and that no restrictions were presently being imposed on Khan's movement.
The bench also took on record an assurance, conveyed on instructions from the station house officer concerned, that police would not make further telephone calls to Khan.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma requested the court not to issue notice, expressing concern that such an order could be misconstrued. The bench declined the request, observing that the petition had already been served on the authorities and that they should have been prepared to respond.
The court directed Delhi Police to submit a status report within two weeks, allowing the allegations and the authorities' justification to be examined in subsequent proceedings.
�������� �������������������� �������������� ������������������������
Apart from challenging his alleged confinement, Khan has questioned an undated prohibitory order issued by Delhi Police restricting public gatherings and demonstrations across the New Delhi district, including Jantar Mantar.
The order prohibits gatherings of five or more people, demonstrations, dharnas, speeches and the carrying of banners or placards without prior written permission.
Khan's petition contends that the restrictions are excessively broad and interfere with constitutionally protected freedoms of movement, expression and peaceful assembly. It seeks a declaration that his alleged preventive detention, continued surveillance and harassment were unlawful and unconstitutional.
His counsel also referred to recent Supreme Court directions concerning the treatment of peaceful protesters and the requirement that restrictions on movement and detention comply with established legal procedures.
The case comes amid wider scrutiny of preventive policing in Delhi following restrictions and mass detentions associated with demonstrations against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The High Court has not made a final determination on whether Khan was illegally detained. Its observations were made during the hearing, and the police have been given an opportunity to explain their actions through a formal status report.
The proceedings have brought into focus the distinction between the police's authority to regulate demonstrations and the legal safeguards governing restrictions on an individual's freedom of movement.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.