The Delhi High Court, during a special sitting on Sunday, directed the Delhi Police to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances and legal authority under which they detained 10 activists, even as the police submitted that they had already been released.
A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja also issued notice in three habeas corpus petitions seeking immediate production of the detained activists and asked the police to file the affidavit within a week.
One petition was filed by Sagrika Rajora, sister of the detained activist Lakshita Rajora, while Ehsanul Haq, the elder brother of another detained activist, Ehtemam Haq, filed the other.
According to the petitions, argued by advocates Shahrukh Alam and Colin Gonsalves, respectively, Lakshita and Ehtemam were last known to be at the office of the student organisation BSCEM in Delhi’s Vijay Nagar. They were suspected to be under illegal detention by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell since the evening of March 13. The petition added that six others, who were also present at the office, went missing.
The other petition was filed by Rajbir, father of the detained activist Shiv Kumar. Kumar, along with another activist, was reportedly picked up from outside the Dyal Singh College gate near the JLN Metro station on March 12.
“Issue notice. We are informed that, as far as the missing persons alleged to have been illegally detained by the police, they have since been released. The respondent shall file an affidavit explaining the circumstances and the authority of law by which they were detained in the first place in a period of a week from today,” the court said in its order.
This came after the petitioners’ lawyers submitted that the activists were picked up by policemen in plain clothes, were not produced before a magistrate, and were neither taken to a police station nor informed of their whereabouts, but were allegedly held at an undisclosed location where they were subjected to violence, abuse and torture.
They confirmed that nine of the 10 activists were released last night, but said that one activist, Rudra, was still in custody. The lawyers added that the activists were unaware of the case in connection with which they were detained and alleged that they continued to face threats even after their release. They added that some of them had also been followed; there had been repeated attempts to pressure them into withdrawing the habeas corpus petition, and they also sought a copy of the FIR in which they were detained.
Delhi Police’s lawyer, additional standing counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, however, said that the activists had been detained in connection with an FIR and that all of them, including Rudra, had since been released. Bhandari further opposed the petitioner’s request for a copy of the FIR, stating that it was “confidential” and would be presented only before the court.
In view of the conflicting claims regarding Rudra’s release, the court directed the Delhi Police to trace him and clarify its position on Monday, when it will hear the habeas corpus petition seeking his production. “Whether he (Rudra) was with you, not with you, released or not released, tell us. As far as the gentleman who has not been found, they’ll trace him,” the judge remarked.
The court also directed the police to preserve CCTV footage from areas including BSCEM in Delhi’s Vijay Nagar, as well as from behind Dayal Singh College and near Gate 5 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Metro Station, from where the activists were allegedly picked up.
The matter will be next heard on March 27.