Section 172 BNSS, which lets a police officer detain or remove anyone who disregards a direction, is the target of a fresh Supreme Court writ filed by a B.Tech student in the aftermath of the October 10 protest in Delhi.
New Delhi: A B.Tech student, Samriddhi Das, who says she was on her way to the October 10 protest at Jantar Mantar against the Chief Election Commissioner but could not reach the site, has asked the Supreme Court to declare Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 unconstitutional, contending that it enables arbitrary detention by the police [Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors.].
The writ petition, registered as Diary No. 64055 of 2026, is yet to be listed, and neither the Bench nor the counsel appearing has been reported. Section 172 is not the only target. The petition also challenges the prohibitory order issued under Section 163 BNSS for the protest, the closure of Metro stations, the cancellation of trains and the suspension of mobile internet in parts of Delhi.
What the petition asks for
The principal prayer is for a declaration that Section 172 BNSS is unconstitutional or, in the alternative, for the provision to be read down so that individualised and recorded reasons, judicial scrutiny and constitutional safeguards become mandatory. It also seeks a declaration that the Section 163 order and the October 10 detentions under Section 172 were illegal, compensation for those unlawfully detained, and disclosure of the number of detainees and the grounds on which they were held.
Beyond that, the petitioner wants binding guidelines on peaceful assemblies and on the use of Sections 163 and 172; the preservation and production of CCTV, drone and body-worn camera footage, control room logs and other electronic records; communication of the whereabouts of protesters in custody to their families and counsel, or their production before the Court; a declaration that the Metro closures, train cancellations and internet suspension were disproportionate and unconstitutional; and a declaration that peaceful protests require only intimation to the authorities, not prior permission. As interim relief, the petition asks that the Delhi Police Commissioner be restrained from invoking Section 172 while it is pending.
The case against Section 172
Under Section 172(1), everyone must comply with lawful directions given by a police officer in the discharge of duties under Chapter XII of the BNSS, which deals with preventive action by the police. Section 172(2) lets the officer detain or remove anyone who resists, refuses, ignores or disregards such a direction, and either take that person before a Magistrate or, in petty cases, release them as soon as possible and within 24 hours.
The petition contends that the provision violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, including the freedoms of speech, assembly and movement under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d). Detention under it, the petitioner says, turns on the subjective view of a police officer, with no requirement of a reasonable apprehension, no recorded reasons and no built-in route to judicial scrutiny. The petition puts it this way:
“Section 172 requires no threshold satisfaction, reasons, record or time-bound production”
Terms such as “lawful directions”, “remove” and “petty cases” are left undefined, the petitioner argues, which invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and a person could be detained merely for “ignoring” or “disregarding” a direction without any proof of a deliberate violation or an offence. Applied to a peaceful demonstration announced in advance against a public authority, the petition says, the power works as a prior restraint.
Detention without the safeguards of arrest
Much of the challenge rests on the words “detain or remove”. These, the petition says, allow the police to bypass the safeguards that attach to an arrest under Chapter V of the BNSS, and the provision carries none of the protections in Article 22(1), (2) and (5). It sets Section 172 against Section 170, which governs preventive arrest, and Section 35, which lays down the conditions for arrest without warrant; both, it says, contain thresholds that Section 172 lacks. It adds that the provision has no counterpart in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and calls it an excessive delegation of power to the police.
As the petitioner reads it, the provision does not require reasons to be recorded or grounds communicated, does not require records to be kept, and does not require production before a Magistrate within a fixed time in every case.
October 10, as the petition tells it
The protest was called against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. According to the petition, thousands of people, including students, activists, lawyers, journalists and political leaders, were detained or stopped from reaching Jantar Mantar that day; some were intercepted far from the area and some were taken off trains. It gives no exact figure. These are the petitioner’s allegations; they are untested, and no response from the Union or the Delhi Police is yet on record.
The petition follows the Supreme Court’s special Sunday sitting on October 11. A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, hearing a contempt plea over Metro closures and habeas petitions over detentions, passed ad-interim directions that included a direction against illegal detention.
Where the matter stands
The Supreme Court has not yet heard the petition and has expressed no view on the challenge.
Case Title: Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: Diary No. 64055/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India; Bench and listing date not yet known
Provision challenged: Section 172, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023