CJP leaders withdraw plea challenging extension of judicial custody

NEW DELHI : Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday withdrew their petition in the Delhi High Court challenging a Special Executive Magistrate’s order extending their judicial custody by two days in connection with protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Justice Subramonium Prasad permitted the withdrawal after expressing reservations about entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, pointing to the availability of an alternative legal remedy.

“Liberty is sacrosanct. But if the Code provides for remedy… when there is already provision available,” the judge observed during the hearing.

The court advised the petitioners to await the outcome of proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate and approach the appropriate appellate or revisional forum if their grievance remained unresolved. The petition was withdrawn without the High Court expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

The two leaders had challenged the October 19 order extending their custody, questioning the legality of the proceedings and the rejection of the sureties furnished on their behalf. Their counsel, Abhik Chimni, argued that the continued detention was unsustainable and that the authorities had acted arbitrarily in rejecting the sureties.

The High Court questioned why the petitioners had approached it when the Magistrate’s order could be challenged through the prescribed legal process. Justice Prasad also observed that the court’s role in writ proceedings differed from that of an appellate or revisional court, which could examine the underlying facts and the correctness of the decision.

The case arises from preventive proceedings initiated against Das and Ranka following their alleged entry into Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a designated protest site. The authorities alleged that they had breached earlier bonds to maintain peace by attempting to unfurl the national flag at the site despite prohibitory restrictions.

The two were initially remanded to five days of judicial custody on October 14. Their custody was subsequently extended by another two days on October 19.

During Wednesday’s hearing, the High Court referred to the alleged breach of the earlier bonds and questioned whether the authorities were justified in imposing stricter conditions. The petitioners disputed the legality of the custody extension and the rejection of their sureties.

The court indicated that the petitioners could pursue the appropriate remedy depending on the outcome of the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate.

The withdrawal of the petition, however, does not amount to a judicial determination on the legality of the custody extension or the merits of the petitioners’ allegations.