The Delhi High Court will today hear a petition filed by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to challenge against a special executive magistrate (SEM)'s order sending them to judicial custody.

Das and Ranka have been in judicial custody since October 14. They were detained by Delhi Police after they scaled a gate to reach Jantar Mantar to wave the national flag as part of their protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

On October 14, the duo was sent to judicial custody for five days. On October 19, the custody was extended for two more days.

In its October 19 order, the SEM said that Das and Ranka's conduct showed that they have no respect for the law and that there are serious concerns about them breaching peace and tranquillity. The SEM also rejected the sureties produced for Das and Ranka after finding them unfit.

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court agreed to hear the petition moved by Das and Ranka to challenge their detention.

Live updates from today's hearing feature here.

Hearing starts.

Court: Come to the prayers.

Advocate Abhik Chimni reads the prayers.

Court: Come to the impugned order. In the little time I got, which is last 20 minutes, correct me if I'm wrong. On 10th was the protest, on 11th you give bail bonds, Jantar Mantar is denotified, you go and you are arrested. On 11/10/2026 bail bond was accepted. When a bail bond is broken, there is a procedure under BNSS for action to be taken, 491, 492?

Court: Here is a case where one preventive notice has been broken and when you give for second preventive notice, how much will... A person goes there gives a bond, breaks the bond, correct or not we will see later... Breaks the bond in which case... I saw your ground... In such a case, insistence on a surety, can it be said to be that illegal or that much against the law? We will hear you on that.

Court: You gave a bond and when you go again by which time Jantar Mantar is denotified, the challenge to denotification is pending before SC. The notification is yet not stayed, you go there and you take a step again. Can the ground of arrest... When all these questions are there. Right or wrong, you have gone there. Just to voice one more thing in mind. The two petitioners here are at the forefront. When you go and break a barricade, the chances of 10 or 20 more people in violation of 163 is very high. There may be persons who might not be in your and who may do things. We are seeing what is happening outside our country.

Court: Arson etc. You may 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.

Court refers to the order.

Court: Is it a revisable order?

Chimni: My challenge is, there is no dispute that on October 14, they said there is apprehension and custody is needed. 135(3) in itself gives you to put someone in interim custody. The nature and manner in which custody is ought to be done is subject...

Court: Your second incident. You are a person who has actually broken a bond... Your remedy actually lies in revision. There is a difference between maintainability and entertainability. Maintainable it is. I do not see the difference between 2 kilometers there and 2 kilometers there (the jurisdictional court). If it is a revisable order why come in 226?

Court: When the matter is coming up today, why run here. Also, if it is a revisable order would it not be appropriate for you to withdraw this, see what happens at 2 PM [before SEM court] and then see what is available to you in law.

Court: Once you have broken peace for the second time, are the authorities not entitled to insist upon everything? At this stage in 226, should I go into all these things or let the events run its course. Would not prudence be better for you to take a step back?

Chimni: I will answer.

Court: Please understand. Instead of arguing now, why not keep your powder dry for revision court and then this Court. Suppose things happen in your favour at 4'clock then all gone. If they don't happen in your favour then you can go to revisional court and then this court. That is why I am saying take a step back and come back in two minutes.

Chimni: My argument is that this is not sustainable at all.

Court: Now start. The point is we must debate when it is necessary. There is no need to debate for people's ears. If you debate then consequences will follow, consequences which will be irreversible for you.

Chimni: Why I am not following the alternate remedy is because of the following reasons.

Court: What if you are released today? This is not the final hearing today. I will have to ask the State to file a response. If today at 4'clock it [SEM proceedings] goes in your favour then its over, if it doesn't then you have your remedy.

Chimni: Look at the findings on surety under this.

Court: If you are insisting, then please come to arguments heard and go down. By the way, what are your ages?

Chimni: Saurav is 27 and Ashutosh is 32.

Court: Then you are not GenZ. What is GenZ?

Court is informed that people born after 1997 are GenZ.

Court: Then you are not GenZ.

Court: It [July protest] was student protest. Children were there but now its another cause. People remain the same, cause is changing. Correct? The next question will be who are you. What are you? What is your association? What is the purpose of your association? Please understand when there is apprehension of peace and tranquility, all these questions will assume important. When you came during first protest in July, the organisation continues but the cause changes. So the question is when there are people whose cause keeps changing...

Court: When the issue is breach of peace, it is important to (know) who are you and what do you do?

Court: Are you only fighting for an observation?

Chimni: My prayer is two folds, that the rejection of surety is bad in law and...

Court: What is the purpose of today's hearing?

Chimni: I should be allowed to be released on personal bond.

Court: Is it not better...

Chimni: 14 October the order was passed, sending me to JC. Why have I come here today is...

Court: Let's open Aldanish Rein vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. and see if it helps you.

Court: You are drawing the court into a debate which might ultimately not go in your favour. Just tell me one thing, what is the purpose of today's hearing in the trial court?

Chimni: They will produce me as JC ends today.

Court to ASG Chetan Sharma.

Court: ASG sir, what are you seeking today?

ASG Sharma: Today they are to be produced in accordance with... They have bee directed to furnish fresh sureties today.

Court (to Chimni): Are your furnishing fresh sureties today?

Chimni: I have furnished sureties multiple times.

Court: Is rejection of surety an appealable order?

Chimni: In my view, yes.

Court: You can't get a proper surety?

Chimni: My surety is good in law.

Court: Can the appellate court go into these questions? Let's see the provision.

Chimni: If i withdraw this petition, if they reject my surety, I will have to come back.

Court: Cut, copy, paste and then come back day after tomorrow.

Chimni: Why should I spend two more days in custody? My lord provided me with two option. One is I withdraw and face what happens today and if I am aggrieved then I challenge it again. My apprehension is not theoretic. The rejection of surety is arbitrary. We did not come to court for 7 days because we were trying to furnish surety.

Chimni: The order on October 19 is fundamentally bad because they did not even have the jurisdiction to extend my custody. Preventive custody is being applied in arbitrary manner.

Court: Liberty is something which is sacrosanct but if the code provides a remedy... When there is an alternate provision available...

Chimni: I am saying my lords may protect me.

Court: You have still now answered about why 226?

Chimni: Suppose I file an appeal against this order. A hearing at SEM would take place at 2PM. My surety will be rejected on a fresh ground.

Court: If it is preventive custody then you have habeas corpus.

Court: Preventive detention would be a writ of habeas corpus. There is a difference between preventive custody and preventive detention.

Chimni: In October 19 order, they have not given any explanation as to what material was received that in future there is an imminent threat.

Court: Violation of the first bond is not imminent enough?

Court: The question is the subjective satisfaction of the magistrate. How does this court sit in the armchair of the magistrate and come to a different conclusion?

Court: In an appeal, the appellate court goes into facts, appreciation of facts and comes to conclusion, in a writ the court only goes into the decision-making process and not the decision itself.

Court: All this you are arguing before me is open for you in an appeal, it might not be open for you under 226 (article 226 of the constitution of India).

Chimni: May I press on another proposition? Please see 135(3) BNSS.

Chimni: There were two fresh sureties, the SEM didn't even call for them.

Chimni reads the SEM order.

Chimni reads the order where the SEM said there was a mismatch in photographs and could not give details about Saurav Das's parentage etc.

Chimni: The order says no other surety is present. There were two sureties, but the SEM did not even call for them.

Court goes on a five minute break.

Court resumes.

Chimni says we will withdraw.

Court records the same and allows withdrawal of the petition.

Order: All contentions for both sides are left open.

ASG Chetan Sharma says they have not filed a reply before the SEM Court.

Court: That the magistrate will take care.

ASG Sharma: I wanted to bring to your notice the fissiparous conduct. Bail bonds thrown to the winds, four sureties revisited.

Hearing ends.