Delhi HC seeks police response on activist Nadeem Khan’s plea alleging confinement ahead of protest
The Delhi High Court has sought a status report from Delhi Police regarding allegations that activist Nadeem Khan was unlawfully confined at his office.
The Delhi High Court has stepped in to demand answers from the Delhi Police following serious allegations of unlawful confinement made by activist Mohammad Wasiq Nadeem Khan. The court is seeking a formal status report to understand why Khan claims his movement was restricted at his office premises just before a scheduled protest.
Allegations of Unlawful Restriction
The legal battle began when Nadeem Khan filed a plea alleging that police personnel prevented him from moving freely at his office on September 29. This incident occurred shortly before he was set to lead a protest at Jantar Mantar. According to the petition, the restriction was not backed by any formal documentation or legal notice.
Representing Khan, advocate Shahrukh Alam informed the court that police officers remained at the premises from approximately 9:30 am until 5:30 pm. To support these claims, the counsel presented a photograph showing police presence at the location. The petitioner argues that this action was a direct infringement on his fundamental rights.
The Court's Sharp Questions
The bench did not mince words while questioning the legality of the police conduct. While acknowledging that law enforcement has the authority to deny permission for protests, the court emphasized that restricting an individual's personal movement requires a clear legal justification.
“You had your right to conduct your duty; how can you do it in such a way? Where is your cause to confine him?” the bench questioned, demanding to know the specific legal basis for the alleged confinement.
The Police Defense
The Delhi Police counsel offered a different perspective on the events of September 29. While admitting that permission for the Jantar Mantar protest had been denied, the police maintained that they had not "detained" Khan in the traditional sense. Instead, they described their presence as a restriction on his movement based on intelligence that he might attempt to proceed to the protest site regardless of the denial.
The police counsel stated that officers were simply sitting at the reception area of the building. They also denied any subsequent contact with Khan, contradicting claims that he had received a telephone call from the police on October 2 while he was attempting to visit his unwell mother.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The case has become more complex due to existing prohibitory orders. The petitioner is challenging orders that restrict assemblies and protests in the New Delhi district, arguing they infringe upon constitutional rights. The Additional Solicitor General urged the court not to issue a formal notice, fearing it might impact separate legal challenges against orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
However, the High Court proceeded to issue a notice to the police, expressing dissatisfaction that a status report was not ready despite the police receiving an advance copy of the petition. In a notable development, the court also recorded a statement from the Station House Officer (SHO) asserting that the police would not call Khan.
The petitioner is now seeking:
- A formal declaration that the restriction of his movement on September 29 was unlawful.
- A thorough inquiry into the circumstances of the incident.
- Appropriate disciplinary action against any personnel found to have acted outside the law.