Top News

The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday, July 21, sharply criticised the state police over the detention of a political activist who was travelling to Delhi to participate in a protest over the alleged NEET paper leak, questioning whether the police were acting to uphold citizens’ constitutional rights or protect the government’s image.

A division bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddharth Sah made the observations while hearing a habeas corpus petition for the second consecutive day in connection with the detention of Prabhat Dhyani (62), president of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party (UPP).

Dhyani was stopped by police at the Rishikesh railway station on Sunday while boarding a train to Delhi, where he planned to join a protest organised in support of students agitating over the alleged NEET paper leak and irregularities in the examination system. Following his detention, UPP secretary Lal Mani approached the High Court seeking his production before the court.

During the hearing, the state informed the bench that Dhyani had been released within 24 hours of being detained.

The High Court questioned the legal basis for preventing Dhyani from travelling, observing that every citizen has the constitutional right to move freely across the country.

“Everyone has the right to move anywhere in the country. Who are you to stop them?” the bench asked.

State govt’s arguments

When the state argued that Dhyani was travelling to participate in a protest, the court asked whether joining a demonstration constituted a cognisable offence. It described the police action as arbitrary and sought to know under what legal authority Dhyani had been removed from the train.

The government initially relied on Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers executive magistrates to issue temporary preventive orders in urgent situations. However, the court noted that the prohibitory order had been issued by the Delhi Police and questioned why Uttarakhand Police had acted on it before Dhyani even reached the national capital.

The state subsequently referred to Section 172 of the BNSS, which permits police to detain persons who fail to comply with lawful directions issued by police officers. The bench, however, asked what specific lawful direction had been given to Dhyani and whether there was any material justifying his detention.

The court also expressed concern after examining the police daily diary, which reportedly stated that Dhyani’s participation in the protest could damage the government’s image.

“Are you here to protect the government’s image or safeguard the constitutional rights of citizens?” the bench asked, adding that authorities could not harass individuals in the name of national security or image management.

The High Court directed that the police officer who removed Dhyani from the train and detained him be impleaded as a respondent in the case. Notices were also issued to the Director General of Police, the Senior Superintendents of Police of Dehradun and Nainital, the Station House Officer concerned and the Government Railway Police, seeking their responses.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 16.