CJP's Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka withdraw petition against custody after HC flags technical issues

Cockroach Janata Party leaders withdrew their plea in the Delhi High Court challenging their detention orders after the bench questioned why they had not pursued alternative legal remedies. The court clarified that it had made no observations on the merits.

In Short

• High Court advised to pursue SEM proceedings instead of court intervention
• ASG raised concerns over petitioners' failure to file reply, surety conditions breach
• Court refused to interfere, asking parties to follow ongoing SEM process

Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) co-conveners Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday withdrew their writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order extending their judicial custody by two days in connection with protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the withdrawal after questioning why the petitioners had approached the High Court despite the availability of alternative legal remedies. The court suggested that they await the outcome of proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) later in the day and pursue the appropriate legal course thereafter.

“Would it not be better for you to withdraw this, see what happens at 2 PM and then follow the course of law,” the judge orally told the petitioners. The court clarified that it had made no observations on the merits of the case.

The court also pointed out that Das and Ranka had filed a writ petition seeking relief but went on to make arguments against the merits of the SEM's decision extending their judicial custody. This argument, the court said, could not be made in a writ petition since writs are limited only to looking at the process of a decision and not its merits.

Advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for Das and Ranka, had argued that the SEM’s October 19 order extending their judicial custody did not adequately explain the imminent threat that necessitated their detention. He also challenged the repeated rejection of their sureties, arguing that the decisions were arbitrary and that the custody order lacked sufficient reasons.

HC QUESTIONS CJP LEADERS’ CONDUCT AT JANTAR MANTAR

During the hearing, the court considered the allegation that the petitioners had breached the peace bonds they furnished on October 11 by going to Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a protest site. The bench noted that the challenge to the denotification was pending before the Supreme Court and that the notification had not been stayed.

The court also referred to the reported breaking of a barricade and observed that such a situation could attract additional people, including individuals whose actions might not be under the organisers’ control.

“You could have started with something you say is peaceful. For that purpose, you take police permission, which is to prevent unwanted persons who join your group and spoil your name,” the judge orally observed.

The bench said the nature and objectives of an organisation could become relevant when authorities considered the possibility of a breach of peace. It also referred to the changing causes associated with the group’s protests and said such circumstances could be considered in proceedings concerning the liberty of its members.

Referring to the leaders’ participation in protests against the NEET paper leak in July, the court asked their ages. Chimni told the bench that Das was 27 and Ranka was 31.

“Then you are not Gen Z,” the judge remarked, adding that the earlier protest had involved students, while the issues surrounding the present proceedings had changed. The court said questions about the association’s identity, objectives and activities could be examined in the appropriate proceedings.

LAWYER CHALLENGES REJECTION OF SURETIES

Chimni argued that the rejection of the petitioners’ sureties was arbitrary and sought their release on personal bonds. The court asked whether they would furnish fresh sureties that day and whether an order rejecting sureties could be challenged through an appeal.

The bench said the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provided legal remedies for such grievances. Chimni expressed concern that withdrawing the writ petition could force the petitioners to return to the High Court if their sureties were rejected again.

The court said personal liberty was paramount but stressed that statutory remedies under the BNSS should be considered. It also distinguished preventive custody from preventive detention while discussing the legal remedies available in such cases.

Chimni maintained that the October 19 order did not adequately explain the immediate threat posed by the petitioners. The court questioned whether the alleged breach of their earlier peace bonds was sufficient to indicate an imminent threat and observed that an appellate court could examine the facts of a case, whereas a writ court would focus on the decision-making process.

Following further submissions, Chimni withdrew the writ petition on instructions from his clients. The High Court permitted the withdrawal without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

WHY DAS AND RANKA WERE DETAINED?

Das and Ranka were detained at an airport on October 10 and proceeded against under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS ahead of planned protests in Delhi against the Chief Election Commissioner. They were released the same day after furnishing peace bonds of INR 50,000.

They were apprehended again on October 14 following an attempt to hold a Tiranga protest at Jantar Mantar. The SEM subsequently extended their judicial custody through an order dated October 19.

In that order, SEM Ritu Raj stated that the respondents had deliberately breached their bonds and committed a breach of peace. The order also cited police concerns about their conduct and their reported calls for protests at areas denotified as protest sites.

The SEM directed the leaders to furnish fresh sureties after finding those submitted unsuitable. According to the order, discrepancies were found between photographs on the bond documents and the sureties’ Aadhaar cards. The sureties were also unable to provide satisfactory answers during the inquiry.

With the withdrawal of the writ petition, the immediate focus shifts to the proceedings before the SEM, followed by any further legal remedies the petitioners may pursue.

- Ends