A day after the Bombay High Court at Goa ordered their release, two police stations and an Executive Magistrate have filed affidavits defending the detention of seven anti-ECI protesters at Panaji’s Azad Maidan, citing apprehended disturbance.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Panaji: The police inspectors of the Panaji and Pernem police stations and the Executive Magistrate of Tiswadi on Monday filed affidavits before the Bombay High Court at Goa justifying the detention of seven people during a Cockroach Janata Party protest at Azad Maidan, a day after the Court ordered their immediate release in a special Sunday sitting [Malisa Simoes and Others v. State of Goa and Others].
The release order of October 11 was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, which observed that there were no prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS and that the detention appeared unauthorised. The affidavits were filed in compliance with the Court’s Sunday directions, and the matter was taken up again on October 12.
The background
Seven protesters, including Afreen Shaikh and Jack Sukhija, were detained on October 11 at Azad Maidan, Panaji, during a protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The habeas corpus petition, filed by Advocate Malisa Zemira Simoes, alleged that the protesters were “bodily lifted” and held at Pernem police station without prohibitory orders or reasons.
At the Sunday hearing, the police told the Court that the North Goa Collector had rejected the group’s application for a public gathering on October 9, and that Executive Magistrate Dattaprasad Toraskar had orally instructed the detention after the group entered the ground. The Court ordered the detainees’ immediate release and the return of their phones, after counsel undertook that they would not protest at Azad Maidan overnight.
What the affidavits say
According to the affidavits, the police expected possible disturbances at Azad Maidan and detained the protesters for that reason. Six were taken to Pernem police station and one to Panaji police station. The affidavits state that the police asked whether the protesters needed water or medical attention, and that one protester fell and was injured while running towards the platform.
Senior Advocate Norma Alvares, appearing for the petitioners, told the Court that according to the police the protesters declined the treatment offered and were later attended to by a 108 ambulance:
“They offered to take them for medical treatment, but they all refused.”
The affidavits also state that the protesters were held until about 7 pm, when the police learned that a petition had been filed in the High Court. Alvares said the Panaji police inspector’s affidavit gave “a detailed account of past events related to the CJP.” These are the State’s assertions and the petitioners’ account of them; the Court has not yet ruled on whether the detention was lawful.
Medical reports awaited
Six of the seven protesters were examined at Goa Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim, on Sunday night, but the hospital had not yet submitted their medical reports. The Court asked Advocate General Devidas Pangam to expedite the reports before the next hearing and adjourned the matter to next week.
Why the order matters
The case turns on a basic question of liberty: whether police can detain peaceful protesters on an apprehension of disturbance when no prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS is in force. On Sunday the Bench recorded its doubt that such a detention was authorised; the affidavits now set out the State’s justification.
The Court has yet to decide the legality of the detention, and both the State’s version and the protesters’ allegations remain to be tested at the next hearing, along with the medical reports.
Case Title: Malisa Simoes and Others v. State of Goa and Others
Bench (release order of October 11): Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, Bombay High Court at Goa
Date of Hearing: October 12, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Norma Alvares for the petitioners; Advocate General Devidas Pangam for the State