Uttarakhand High Court strongly reprimands police for detaining Prabhat Dhyani en route to Delhi protest, questioning legal basis and constitutional rights violations.
The Uttarakhand High Court issued a scathing critique of police actions after detaining a man traveling to Delhi for a protest. Authorities were ordered to explain the legal justification for preventing the individual’s movement.
Uttarakhand High Court, Delhi protest, police detention, Prabhat Dhyani, constitutional rights, BNSS sections 163/172, habeas corpus petition, government image, Rishikesh railway station
The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday took strong issue with police for detaining Prabhat Dhyani, 62, at Rishikesh railway station while he traveled to Delhi to participate in a Constitutionally Judiciary Programme (CJP)-led protest. Chief Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddharth Sah questioned whether police were meant to protect citizens’ constitutional rights or the government’s image.
Dhyani, president of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party, announced via social media his intention to join the Delhi protest supporting students opposing the alleged NEET examination paper leak and system failures. After his detention at the railway station on Sunday, Uttarakhand Parivartan Party secretary Lal Mani filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his immediate production before the high court.
The bench expressed strong displeasure over the police action, questioning the legal basis for stopping Dhyani’s travel. “Every citizen has the right to move anywhere in the country; who are you to stop them?” the court asked. When state counsel submitted that Dhyani was heading to join a protest, the court responded, “Is participating in a protest a cognizable offence? This is sheer gundagardi by police. What legal directives had police issued?”
Government counsel cited BNSS section 163, which empowers an executive magistrate to issue urgent temporary orders to prevent unrest. The court observed that the order had been issued by Delhi Police and any alleged violation would fall under their jurisdiction. Subsequently, the defense referenced BNSS section 172, allowing police to detain those failing to comply with lawful directions. However, the bench sought clarification on the specific lawful direction given to Dhyani and requested material justifying his removal from the train.
The high court also expressed displeasure after reviewing the police daily diary, which stated Dhyani’s participation could tarnish the government’s image. “Are you here to protect govt’s image or safeguard constitutional rights of people?” the court asked. Authorities were directed to include the officer who removed Dhyani from the train in the case. Notices were issued to the DGP, SSPs of Dehradun and Nainital, the concerned SHO, and the Government Railway Police, with the next hearing fixed for September 16.
The court’s intervention follows growing tensions surrounding the Delhi protests, which have gained momentum in response to student agitations against alleged examination malpractices. The high court’s stance underscores the legal complexities surrounding citizens’ rights to freely travel and assemble, particularly in the context of political demonstrations.
