The Uttarakhand High Court has criticized police for detaining a man at Rishikesh railway station while he was traveling to Delhi for a CJP-led protest.
The Uttarakhand High Court expressed strong displeasure over the detention of Prabhat Dhyani. The court questioned if police exist to protect constitutional rights or government image.
Uttarakhand High Court, Rishikesh railway station, Prabhat Dhyani, Delhi protest, CJP protest, Uttarakhand Police, Human rights, Constitutional rights, Legal news
The Uttarakhand High Court has strongly criticized the police for the detention of 62-year-old Prabhat Dhyani at the Rishikesh railway station. Dhyani was traveling toward Delhi to join a protest led by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). During a hearing on Tuesday, a division bench consisting of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddharth Sah expressed deep dissatisfaction with the actions taken by law enforcement officers. The court questioned whether the primary duty of the police is to safeguard the constitutional rights of citizens or merely to protect the image of the government.
“This amounts to anarchy. We are living under a constitutional regime. Do not harass people in the name of national security or govt’s image,” the bench stated during the proceedings. The court’s blunt assessment comes after Dhyani, who serves as the president of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party, was stopped while attempting to travel to the capital for the demonstration. The protest was organized in support of students who have been agitating against alleged failures in the examination system and the NEET paper leak.
The legal dispute began after Dhyani was stopped on Sunday. Following the incident, UPP secretary Lal Mani filed a habeas corpus petition to have Dhyani produced before the court. While state counsel mentioned that Dhyani was released within 24 hours of his detention, the legal basis for his removal from the train remains contested. The bench questioned why authorities felt the need to intervene, asking, “Everyone has the right to move anywhere in the country; who are you to stop them?”
But the situation grew more complex when the court examined the police daily diary. The document suggested that Dhyani’s participation in the protest could potentially tarnish the image of the government. This reasoning drew sharp criticism from the bench. Justice Maithani questioned why the detention occurred in Uttarakhand when the order cited by the government was issued by the Delhi Police. The court noted that any alleged violation of a Delhi order should be addressed by authorities in Delhi. This highlights a significant procedural tension regarding jurisdiction.
The government counsel attempted to justify the action by citing BNSS section 163, which allows executive magistrates to issue urgent temporary orders to prevent public nuisance or unrest. They also referred to BNSS section 172, regarding the authority to take persons into custody for failing to comply with lawful directions. However, the bench pressed for specifics. They wanted to know exactly what lawful direction had been issued to Dhyani and whether there was any material evidence to justify his removal from the train. The court even asked, “Is participating in a protest a cognisable offence? This is sheer gundagardi by police.”
The court has now directed that the specific officer responsible for removing Dhyani from the train and detaining him at the station must be added as a party to the case. The bench has also issued formal notices to the DGP, the SSPs of Dehradun and Nainital, the concerned SHO, and the Government Railway Police. These parties must provide their responses to the court. The next hearing for this matter has been scheduled for Sept 16. This case marks a rare moment of direct confrontation between the judiciary and local law enforcement over civil liberties.
