India
Delhi Police Detain Protesters Amid Calls for Legal Clarity
On Saturday, October 10, 2026, Delhi Police detained a large number of protesters who were demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged deletions from electoral rolls. The detentions occurred across the national capital, including areas beyond the New Delhi district where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are in force. Among those taken into custody were Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) representatives Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who were seized after police boarded their Air India flight upon arrival in Delhi. CJP legal wing head Ratna Singh claimed that police prevented her from leaving her residence in Jangpura, while YouTuber Dhruv Rathee was detained at a residential flat in Gurugram. Several protesters were reportedly picked up and transported by bus, with some alleging they were not informed of the grounds for their detention, raising concerns about compliance with constitutional safeguards on personal liberty.
Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows an executive magistrate to issue prohibitory orders where “immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable.” Delhi Police said the detentions followed violations of prohibitory orders in the New Delhi district that bar unauthorised public assemblies, demonstrations and protests. Late on Saturday evening, police announced that women protesters and senior citizens were being released from detention centres, while “due legal process” would be followed for the CJP leaders. However, the legal authority used to detain protesters from areas where such orders were not in force, or whether other preventive powers were invoked, remained unclear.
Advocate Nipun Saxena described the detention of CJP representatives from areas in Delhi‑NCR where prohibitory orders are not in force as wholly illegal. He criticised the increasing use of prohibitory orders to quell even peaceful protests, arguing that authorities reissue them routinely, turning an exceptional power into a tool to curb demonstrations. Saxena also highlighted the practice of detaining rather than formally arresting protesters, which he said allows police to avoid procedural safeguards that accompany an arrest. He noted that if arrests were made in cases where protesters were not committing a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years, they would have to justify them before the courts. Saxena said that is why police detain people and release them within 24 hours to avoid being produced before a magistrate.
The safeguards applicable to brief detentions during protests remain a grey area. The extent to which formal arrest safeguards apply to temporary restraints on personal liberty, and the consequences of their breach, have not been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.
Former Supreme Court judge Abhay S. Oka said authorities are obligated under Article 22 of the Constitution to communicate the grounds for depriving a person of liberty “as soon as may be.” He argued that this protection cannot be circumvented merely by describing the restraint as detention rather than a formal arrest. Saxena agreed, stating that even when police claim to exercise preventive powers rather than arresting for an offence, the grounds for detention must be communicated at the earliest opportunity. He cited Supreme Court judgments that hold that communication of the grounds of detention is a sine qua non even in cases of preventive detention under stringent laws such as the National Security Act, 1980.
(With inputs from Jagriti Chandra and Saurabh Trivedi)