The Bombay High Court at Goa has ordered the release of seven anti-ECI protesters detained at Azad Maidan, Panaji, noting that no prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS was in force.
Panaji: The Bombay High Court at Goa, sitting on a Sunday, has ordered the release of seven persons detained while protesting against the Election Commission of India (ECI) at Azad Maidan, Panaji, after observing that there were no prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and that the detention may not have been authorised [Malisa Simoes and Others v. State of Goa and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar passed the order on October 11, 2026, in habeas corpus petitions filed by Advocate Malisa Zemira Simoes for Afreen Shaikh, Jack Sukhija, Bupesh Bind, Aditya Parulekar, Listan Noronha, Shamino Fernandes and Milind Rane.
The petitioners’ case
The petitions alleged that the seven were detained at Azad Maidan that evening, lifted from the site and taken to Pernem Police Station without being told the reason for the detention, and that no order under Section 163 BNSS prohibited gatherings at the venue. They sought immediate production and release from the custody of the Police Inspector, Pernem.
What the police told the Court
The Court heard the Police Inspectors of the Panaji and Pernem police stations. The Panaji Inspector submitted that the seven had applied for permission for a public gathering, that the North Goa Collector rejected the application on October 9, 2026, and that they were detained in that context and taken to Pernem Police Station, from where they were to be produced before the Panaji Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Court noted that Executive Magistrate Dattaprasad Toraskar, present at the site, had given oral instructions to the police to detain the seven after they entered Azad Maidan.
What the Court said
“there are no prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS.”
The Bench opined that “the detention may not have been authorised”, but did not decide the correctness of the detention.
The directions
Senior Advocate Norma Alvares gave an undertaking on instructions that the detainees would not protest at Azad Maidan that night, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. On that undertaking, the Court directed the Police Inspector, Panaji, to release the seven forthwith. The Police Inspectors told the Court that the detainees’ phones, which had been taken, had been returned.
If the seven volunteered for a medical check-up that night, they were to be examined by the Casualty Medical Officer at Goa Medical College, Bambolim, with the result or any hurt certificate to be placed on record in a sealed cover. The Police Inspectors of both stations and the Executive Magistrate were permitted to file affidavits, and the matter was listed on October 12, 2026 at 12 noon.
Why the order matters
A habeas corpus petition tests whether a person is being held under authority of law. Here the Court did not rule on whether the detention was ultimately justified, and the authorities’ explanation, that the application for a gathering had been refused and the Executive Magistrate had given oral instructions, remains to be tested on affidavits.
The order records that no written prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS existed at the venue, which is the point on which the petitioners’ case turned at the interim stage. The petitioners’ contentions on the right to protest and the State’s contentions on public order are both left open for the next hearing.
Case Title: Malisa Simoes and Others v. State of Goa and Others [WP(F) No. 2830 of 2026 with WP(F) No. 2831 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, Bombay High Court at Goa
Date of Order: October 11, 2026
Appearances: Norma Alvares, Senior Advocate, with Om D’Costa, for the petitioners in WP 2830/2026; Mayank Suri for the petitioners in WP 2831/2026; Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State