Delhi HC seeks police explanation, orders CCTV footage preservation over alleged illegal detention of 10 activists

In a special Sunday sitting, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to file an affidavit within a week explaining the circumstances and the legal authority under which 10 students and activists were allegedly detained on Thursday and Friday.

The court was hearing three habeas corpus writ petitions – a legal remedy seeking the production of a person to determine if their detention is lawful.

The petitioners’ lawyers informed the court that nine of the 10 detainees were released by the police at midnight, barely 12 hours before the hearing, allegedly because news had broken about the high court constituting a special bench.

Taking note of the petitioners’ submission that one of the activists, Rudra Vikram Roy, was still missing, the court ordered the police to trace his whereabouts by Monday, despite the State’s assertion that he had already been released.

During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel also requested a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) connected to the detentions.

However, theDelhiPolice’s counsel refused to share it, claiming the document was “confidential” and would only be produced before the court.

The bench did not immediately direct the police to hand over the FIR to the petitioners.

To prevent the potential tampering of evidence, the court also ordered the immediate preservation of CCTV footage from multiple locations where the activists were allegedly picked up on March 12 and 13.

This includes footage from the back gate of Dyal Singh College, the Jahangirpuri area, and the Bhagat Singh Chatra Ekta Manch (BSCEM) office in Vijay Nagar.

The high court will next hear the matter on March 27.

The 10 detained activists include six members of the BSCEM, a Delhi University-based students’ organisation, two members of the Mazdoor Adhikar Sangathan, a Sonipat-based labour union, and two members of the Forum Against Corporatization and Militarization, a Delhi-based collective that advocates for the rights of tribals in Chhattisgarh.

During the urgent hearing, which commenced at 12 noon on March 15, the petitioners’ counsel called the police action an “alarming situation”, alleging that the activists were picked up by plainclothes officers, taken to unmarked “safe houses” instead of designated police stations, and kept overnight without being produced before a magistrate.

This, the lawyers argued, was a violation of the mandatory 24-hour production rule and arrest guidelines under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The counsel further alleged that the detainees were subjected to torture, “told that they will be eliminated,” and forced to sign papers at the time of their release stating that they had joined the police investigation voluntarily.

Refuting these claims, the police’s counsel informed the bench that the individuals were detained in connection with an ongoing FIR and had been issued formal notices to join the investigation, with which the activists had complied voluntarily.

The petitioners contested this, informing the court that the released youth were still receiving threatening messages pressuring them to withdraw their court cases.

The court permitted the petitioners to file an additional affidavit detailing the testimonies of the released activists by Monday.

According to the petitions, the activists were picked up in separate sweeps.

On March 12, two activists were allegedly forced into a vehicle outside Dyal Singh College.

Later that evening, another activist was reportedly picked up from the Jahangirpuri area.

The following night, seven more activists were allegedly taken from the BSCEM office in North Campus.

Three of the detained activists had also been arrested in November last year during a protest against air pollution in Delhi at India Gate for allegedly raising slogans in support of Naxalites.

Another detainee, Shiv Kumar, had been kept in unlawful detention and tortured by the Haryana Police in January 2021, an inquiry report by a district and sessions judge of Faridabad produced before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had shown.