Delhi High Court questions police over alleged confinement of APCR activist Nadeem Khan

The Delhi High Court on Monday questioned the Delhi Police over the alleged confinement of Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) national secretary Nadeem Khan at his residence and office, asking the authorities to explain the legal basis for entering his premises and restricting his movements ahead of a planned protest at Jantar Mantar.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma issued notice on Khan's petition challenging his alleged detention on September 29. The court directed the police to file a status report within two weeks and recorded the police counsel's assurance that officers would not make further telephone calls to Khan.

The court declined to accept the police's explanation without seeking a formal response, questioning why the authorities had entered Khan's premises when they could have denied permission for the proposed demonstration.

“How can you enter house of this man? You have right to conduct duty but how can you in such a way? Where is your cause to confine him? Denying permission is your right. Show us where is in law,” the bench orally asked the police counsel.

The police denied detaining Khan, maintaining that officers had visited his premises only to make inquiries and monitor his movements after receiving information that he might proceed with the protest despite permission being denied.

Police say officers were monitoring Khan's movements

During the hearing, the Delhi Police counsel submitted that Khan had sought permission to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar, but the request had been rejected. The Shaheen Bagh police station subsequently received information that he might still participate in the demonstration, prompting officers to visit his premises.

The police maintained that the officers left at around 5.30 pm on September 29 and that Khan had not been detained.

“It was only to restrict his movement because permission was denied. We didn't visit him thereafter,” the police counsel told the court.

While dictating its order, the bench noted the police counsel's submission that officers had been deployed with the intention of monitoring Khan's movements.

The court also recorded the police's position that there was no restriction on Khan's movement at present and that, according to the authorities, there had been no violation of the Supreme Court's directions concerning the protests.

The bench nevertheless issued notice to the respondents and directed the police to submit a status report within two weeks.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma urged the court not to issue notice, arguing that it could be misconstrued. The bench, however, said it was issuing notice because the police had already received an advance copy of the petition.

“They should have been ready with status report today. Their intention of not filing status report means they wanted an order of court,” the bench orally observed.

The court also accepted the police counsel's statement, made on instructions from the station house officer (SHO), that no further telephone calls would be made to Khan.

Khan alleges eight-hour confinement and continued surveillance

Appearing for Khan, advocate Shahrukh Alam told the court that police personnel had arrived at his residence and office, situated within the same compound, on September 29 without showing any notice or written order.

According to the petition, Khan was confined at the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind headquarters in Abul Fazal Enclave by personnel attached to the Shaheen Bagh police station from around 9.30 am to 5.30 pm. He has alleged that the action was intended to prevent him from attending a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar.

Alam referred to photographs submitted before the court, which she said showed police officers at the premises. She submitted that the officers remained there throughout the day and that their presence effectively prevented Khan from leaving to attend the protest.

She also alleged that surveillance continued after September 29, with police personnel contacting Khan to ask about his movements.

Alam told the court that officers had remained at the premises until 5.30 pm and that Khan had provided them with lunch and tea despite not being shown any formal notice or order authorising the alleged confinement.

She further submitted that on October 2, when Khan's mother was unwell, he received a call from the police asking where he was going. Although he was not stopped from leaving on that occasion, she alleged that the continued monitoring amounted to harassment.

The petition also provided the telephone number of the officer concerned, according to Alam, who argued that Khan was being subjected to persistent surveillance and intimidation.

She said the police presence at his office had caused embarrassment, particularly because Khan regularly coordinated with lawyers and worked on legal matters.

Alam argued that Khan had been unable to participate in the proposed protest because of the alleged confinement. She told the court that she was primarily seeking a declaration that the police action amounted to harassment.

“Today I am only pressing the prayer for a declaration that this is harassment,” she said.

Activist challenges restrictions on peaceful protests

Khan's petition challenges not only his alleged confinement but also a Delhi Police prohibitory order restricting public assemblies and demonstrations in the New Delhi district, including at Jantar Mantar.

The undated order reportedly prohibits gatherings of five or more people, demonstrations, dharnas, speeches and the carrying of banners or placards without prior written permission.

Khan has argued that the blanket restrictions unlawfully curtail the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. He has also alleged violations of Articles 14 and 21, which respectively guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty.

According to the petition, an application seeking permission for the proposed demonstration was submitted to the Parliament Street police station on September 19, but no response was received.

Khan has claimed that he was subsequently informed through an anonymous telephone call that permission for the protest had been cancelled. He said he challenged the purported cancellation before the SHO but received no response.

The proposed demonstration was intended to protest against attacks on places of worship and the exclusion of citizens through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Khan has maintained that the planned gathering was peaceful and that there was no apprehension of violence, a breach of peace, obstruction or the commission of an offence.

He has also alleged that he was neither formally arrested nor given written grounds for his confinement. According to the petition, he was not produced before a magistrate, and no information about his alleged detention was provided to his relatives.

The plea has been filed through advocates Chinmay Kanojia, Archit Krishna, Tamanna Pankaj and Priya Vats.

Khan invokes Supreme Court directions on freedom of movement

During Monday's hearing, Alam also referred to directions issued by the Supreme Court on Sunday concerning protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

She argued that the directions concerning freedom of movement and protection against illegal detention in connection with peaceful demonstrations were relevant to Khan's case.

Alam said Khan was covered by three directions issued by the Supreme Court, highlighting the provision concerning the free movement of people and the prohibition of unlawful detention in peaceful cases.

She argued that repeated telephone calls and the presence of police personnel at Khan's workplace had interfered with his ability to carry out his work as a social activist and coordinate with lawyers.

The police, however, maintained that the officers had acted on information suggesting that Khan might proceed to Jantar Mantar despite the denial of permission.

The High Court has not yet determined whether the alleged confinement, surveillance or restrictions were unlawful. It has sought the police's account of the events and accepted the assurance that Khan would not receive further telephone calls from the authorities.

The court's next consideration of the matter will follow the filing of the status report within two weeks.