Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday, October 21, withdrew their petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the extension of their judicial custody in connection with protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Justice Subramonium Prasad advised their counsel to await the outcome of proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) and approach the appropriate appellate court if their grievances persisted.
The leaders had challenged an October 19 order extending their custody until October 21, arguing that their continued detention was unlawful and infringed on their fundamental right to personal liberty. The withdrawal came without the High Court ruling on the merits of their challenge, leaving the immediate outcome dependent on the proceedings before the magistrate.
What Did the Court Say
During the hearing, Justice Prasad questioned whether approaching the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was the appropriate course when proceedings were already scheduled before the SEM. According to reports, the judge suggested that the petitioners wait for the magistrate’s decision before deciding on their next legal step.
He observed, “Liberty is sacrosanct. But if the Code provides for remedy…” while discussing the availability of alternative legal remedies. The court subsequently permitted Das and Ranka to withdraw their petition, clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of their case. Their counsel, advocate Abhik Chimni, agreed to withdraw the plea following the court’s suggestion. The SEM was scheduled to reconsider the sureties furnished by the two leaders at 2 pm on Wednesday.
The High Court’s position did not amount to a decision that the custody extension was lawful or unlawful; rather, it indicated that the petitioners should first pursue the available procedure before seeking further judicial intervention.
Court Refers To France Protests – During the hearing, Justice Subramonium Prasad referred to student-led protests in France that had reportedly escalated into arson and looting, using the example to underline concerns about demonstrations potentially spiralling into disorder. “Students’ protest has led to arson and looting in France,” the court orally remarked, according to reports. The judge questioned why the CJP leaders had not approached the District Magistrate for permission to protest at Jantar Mantar, stressing that restrictions on demonstrations were also intended to prevent unauthorised people from joining and creating disruption. He also asked about the changing nature of the movement, noting that it had initially involved students and young people but that its stated objectives appeared to have shifted. The court’s observations came amid allegations that Das and Ranka had breached peace bonds by returning to Jantar Mantar after the site was denotified as a designated protest venue. These were oral observations during the hearing, not findings that the two leaders were responsible for violence in France or that they had committed the alleged breach.
Why Were They Detained?
Das and Ranka were detained by Delhi Police on October 13 after they allegedly entered the barricaded premises at Jantar Mantar by reportedly climbing over its gates. The site had been denotified as a designated protest venue, and the demonstrators were protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The agitation formed part of CJP’s campaign raising concerns about electoral processes, including the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Following their detention, the two leaders were initially sent to judicial custody for five days on October 14. On October 19, a Special Executive Magistrate extended their custody by another two days, until October 21.
The leaders subsequently approached the High Court, arguing that the extension was legally unsustainable and that their continued detention violated their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. Their counsel also questioned the rejection of the sureties submitted for their release and challenged the legal basis for extending their custody. The case was therefore not simply about the protest itself, but also about the legality of the preventive proceedings and the safeguards available to people held under such orders. The withdrawal of the High Court petition did not, by itself, resolve these questions.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The developments underline the importance of protecting the right to peaceful protest while ensuring that public demonstrations are conducted within the framework of the law. In a democracy, citizens must be able to question public institutions, raise concerns about electoral processes and seek accountability without fear of arbitrary restrictions.
At the same time, designated protest rules and lawful directions must be taken seriously, and allegations of violations should be examined through fair, transparent procedures rather than assumptions or political rhetoric. Equally, the right to personal liberty demands that any detention be supported by lawful grounds and remain open to meaningful judicial scrutiny.
The High Court’s decision to permit the withdrawal of the petition should not be mistaken for a ruling on whether the custody extension was justified. As the proceedings move forward, clarity from the authorities and due process will be essential to maintaining public trust. Democratic disagreements are best addressed through dialogue, proportionate enforcement and accessible legal remedies, rather than escalating tensions between protesters and the state. How can authorities protect public order while ensuring that citizens retain their right to peaceful dissent and fair treatment under the law?
