The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, October 21, questioned Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka over their continued involvement in protests and the alleged breach of peace bonds, remarking that they were “millennials, not Gen Z”. During the hearing of their petition challenging an extension of judicial custody, Justice Subramonium Prasad questioned how the movement’s cause had changed from a student-led agitation to protests over electoral issues.
The court also referred to student protests abroad that escalated into arson and looting, stressing the role of police permission in preventing disorder. The leaders have challenged the extension of their custody following their alleged entry into the recently denotified Jantar Mantar protest site in Delhi. CJP’s legal team has sought their release, while the police have cited concerns over public order.
Court Questions Protest Intent
During Wednesday’s hearing, the Delhi High Court questioned the ages, affiliations and objectives of the two CJP leaders while considering their challenge to the order extending their judicial custody. Justice Subramonium Prasad reportedly observed that Das, who is 26 or 27 according to differing media reports, and Ranka, who is 31, did not belong to Generation Z, prompting the court to ask about the millennial age group. The judge also questioned the shift in the movement’s objectives, observing, “People remain the same, but the cause has changed.” The remarks came amid arguments over whether the leaders’ actions justified continued restrictions on their liberty.
The court also questioned the decision to cross barricades and enter Jantar Mantar after it had been removed from the list of designated protest sites. Referring to student-led protests abroad that escalated into violence, the court reportedly observed that demonstrations could attract people whose actions organisers might not be able to control. “When you break a bond, aren’t authorities not entitled to seek a stricter bond?” the court asked, according to reports. It further noted that police permission was intended not only to regulate those organising a protest but also to prevent other people from joining and potentially disrupting it. The court stressed that a person’s identity, association, intentions and the purpose of an organisation could become relevant when authorities assess the possibility of a breach of peace.
Custody And Legal Challenge
Das and Ranka were among the CJP members detained in Delhi following protests linked to the movement’s demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. On October 13, the two allegedly entered the Jantar Mantar premises through a barricaded entrance after the site had been denotified as an authorised protest venue. They reportedly unfurled the national flag and raised slogans against the Election Commission. Police accused them of breaching peace bonds and obstructing officials from performing their duties. The leaders were subsequently placed in five days of judicial custody, which was extended by another two days on October 19.
The Special Executive Magistrate, Ritu Raj, cited concerns about a possible breach of peace and public tranquillity while extending their custody. The order reportedly stated that the leaders had allegedly violated bonds furnished earlier and that their assurance against repeating the conduct did not inspire confidence. The magistrate also rejected the sureties submitted on their behalf, citing discrepancies in identity documents and concerns about the sureties’ ability to provide basic details. Delhi Police maintained that their release could lead to further violations and encourage others to disregard restrictions.
The leaders challenged the custody extension before the High Court, arguing that their continued detention violated their constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21. Their legal team questioned the grounds for rejecting the sureties and argued that the magistrate’s order lacked an adequate independent assessment of the alleged threat. CJP’s head of legal affairs, Ratna Singh, had sought an urgent hearing, saying the leaders should not spend another minute behind bars and that their liberty should not be curtailed for political reasons. The High Court agreed to hear their plea urgently on Wednesday, when their extended custody was due to expire. The outcome of the proceedings will determine the next stage of their legal challenge.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The developments underline the delicate balance between maintaining public order and protecting the democratic right to dissent. Authorities have a responsibility to ensure that demonstrations do not endanger public safety, and protesters must respect lawful restrictions and avoid actions that could put others at risk. At the same time, questioning electoral processes, demanding accountability and raising concerns about institutions are legitimate parts of democratic participation.
Allegations of unlawful conduct must be assessed through a fair legal process, with decisions on detention and liberty grounded in evidence and established legal principles rather than assumptions about a person’s age, identity or political association. Public debate is best served when institutions respond transparently and demonstrators pursue their demands peacefully. How can India protect the right to protest while ensuring public safety and accountability on all sides?
Also Read: Delhi Police Transfers Second Case Against CJP Leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka To Crime Branch
