Can a refusal of permission to protest, by itself, justify detention? That is the contention in a habeas corpus petition moved in the Supreme Court by Gaurav Bharti, the Cockroach Janta Party’s coverage coordinator, who seeks the production and release of detained party leaders. The allegations are the petitioner’s, they are untested, and the Court has expressed no view on them.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Seeking the production and release of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke and other detained leaders, Gaurav Bharti, the CJP Coverage Coordinator, has moved a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court, challenging the police action taken ahead of the party’s protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls [Gaurav Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.].
Advocate-on-Record Rajesh G. Inamdar and advocate Shashwat Anand represent the petitioner. Which Bench will hear the petition has not yet been confirmed.
The relief sought
Besides the production and release of the detainees, the petition wants their identities, whereabouts, and the legal grounds and circumstances of their detention disclosed, a request it extends to CJP legal head Ratna Singh and other advocates. It further asks the Court to direct the preservation of CCTV footage, police station diaries and movement registers, and the production of the original order refusing permission for the protest, the prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita with its accompanying map, and the police records supporting each detention.
Intercepted after landing, the petition says
As the petition tells it, Mr Dipke, party co-convenor Saurav Das and spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka were intercepted and taken into custody at Indira Gandhi International Airport after landing, before they could reach the proposed protest venue at Jantar Mantar. It also alleges that some detainees were taken to undisclosed locations, with no FIR or preventive detention order disclosed.
The constitutional questions
Relying on Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22, which cover free speech, peaceful assembly, personal liberty and protection against unlawful arrest, the petitioner contends that refusing permission to hold a demonstration cannot by itself justify detention, and that any deprivation of liberty must independently meet constitutional and statutory safeguards. It also asks whether a Section 163 order for the Parliament Street area could justify detentions made outside its limits, such as at the Delhi airport and in Gurugram. The petition states that it does not seek immunity from lawful action for any separate offence supported by specific material.
The respondents and their stated position
The respondents are the Union government, the Delhi government, senior Delhi Police authorities, and the States of Haryana, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Delhi Police has described the detentions made in the city on the protest day as preventive, citing public safety and traffic management, and the Election Commission has denied wrongdoing in the revision of electoral rolls. No response to this petition was available at the time of writing.
Another habeas plea on the same protests
A separate habeas corpus petition by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy over the detention of political leaders during the same protests is listed before a special Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana on Sunday, 11 October 2026. It is not confirmed whether Mr Bharti’s petition will be taken up along with it.
Case Details: Gaurav Bharti v. Union of India & Ors., Article 32 habeas corpus petition, Supreme Court of India. Case number and listing not yet available. Story developing.
Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Rajesh G. Inamdar and advocate Shashwat Anand for the petitioner.
