Gundagardi: Uttarakhand HC grills State for detaining activist who wished to join CJP protests

The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the State's justification for detaining Uttarakhand Parivartan Party chief Prabhat Dhyani after he indicated on a social media post that he would join the youth-led protests at Delhi's Jantar Mantar.

A Bench of Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah observed that the State appears to have engaged in hooliganism.

"It is gundagardi (hooliganism) ... What is the lawful direction (did Dhyani disobey to detain him), sir? What is the lawful direction to your police officer? 'You don't go to Delhi, you don't go to join the march'?" remarked Justice Maithani.

Dhyani had been detained after he uploaded a Facebook post on July 19, wherein he expressed support for activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on hunger strike as part of the protests, and indicated that he (Dhyani) woud join the protest.

He was intercepted at the Rishikesh Railway Station that evening while travelling to Delhi. His associate, Lal Mani, filed a petition before the High Court demanding his release and questioning the legality of his detention.

He was eventually traced to Ramnagar Police Station, Nainital, and released within 24 hours. This was conveyed to the High Court yesterday.

However, the Court did not close the petition. The Bench demanded the State's response on why Dhyani was detained in the first place. In yesterday's hearing, the Court also took critical note of the State's submission that Dhyani, an adult man in his 60s, was handed over to his "mother's custody", instead of simply being set free.

The petitioner's counsel today clarified that the State had handed over Dhyani to his wife's custody, and not to his mother.

Meanwhile, the. State's counsel today sought to justify the July 19 detention citing Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires the public to obey lawful police directions.

He added that violating a prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS is a cognisable offence that "can be committed anywhere in the country."

Justice Maithani, however, asked which specific lawful direction had been issued that was purportedly disobeyed.

The judge also questioned why the Uttarakhand Police was concerned with the possibility that Dhyani may commit a cognisable offence in Delhi.

"I have a right to move anywhere in the country, who are you to stop me?" Justice Maithani asked.

"He is doing cognisable offence, milord," replied the State's counsel.

"Where did he do cognisable offence, sir?" the judge persisted.

"He is going to Delhi, milord," said the State counsel.

"So anyone who was going to join the protest is committing cognisable offence?" asked the judge.

The State's counsel responded by stating that prohibitory orders were in force to prevent the protests in Delhi. Defying such orders would be a cognisable offence in any part of the country, he added.

The Court, however, pointed out that these are matters for the Delhi Police to look into, not the Uttarakhand police.

"What Jurisdiction do you have here? What territorial jurisdiction do you have here? ... This is gundagardi, sir... Who are you to stop? Delhi police will take care of it," said Justice Maithani.

The State's counsel went on to cite "national security" concerns and the need to protect the government's image. The Court was not impressed, and warned the State against harassing individuals in the name of national security and 'sarkar ki chawi' (government's image).

"Are you there to protect the image of the government or the constitutional rights of an individual?" asked Justice Maithani.

He added that individual rights under Articles 19 (freedom of movement) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution of India cannot be overridden this way.

"But milord, national security, protecting parliament, it is also important," urged the State's counsel.

"Bade bade shabd mat boliye, inka koi mayne nahi hai is case me (translation: don't use such big words, they mean nothing here)," the Court replied.

The Court proceeded to seek the response of the police officer responsible for detaining Dhyani on July 19, before adjourning the case.

Advocates Snigdha Tiwari, Abhijay Negi and Harsh Vardhan Bhatt appeared for the petitioner, Lal Mani.