'This Is Gunda Gardi, What Authority Did You Have?': Uttarakhand High Court Slams Police For Detaining Politician En Route CJP Sansad March

The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday (July 21) orally questioned the State Police as to under what authority it had detained Uttarakhand Parivartan Party (UPP) president Prabhat Dhyani en route to the Cockroach Janta Party's march towards Parliament in Delhi on Monday. 

At the outset the counsel for the State submitted before a division bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah that the detention is "totally legal". 

At this stage the court orally asked, "Under which law? In CrPC/BNSS?". The counsel pointed to Section 163 BNSS (which empowers Executive Magistrates to issue urgent preventive orders to maintain public order and tranquility). At this stage the court orally asked, "District Magistrate Dehradun passed this authorization?". 

To this the counsel said that the detainee Prabhat Dhyani had admittedly made a social media post announcing that he would participate in Cockroach Janta Party's march towards Parliament, in support of students protesting the alleged NEET paper leak.

"We have no objection to the protest being held at Jantar Mantar. However, permission has not been granted for the march to Parliament," the State's counsel said.

To this the court orally asked, "Who are you? You are not Delhi Police!".

The counsel said, “If any cognizable offence is being committed anywhere in the country and we have information about it, we can detain the persons concerned.”

To this, the Court remarked, “You have pointed out a rather strange law... What is the cognizable offence here? Section 163 of the BNSS (Section 144 of the CrPC) is not even in force. What directions had you issued under Section 172 of the BNSS?”

Section 172 BNSS mandates that all individuals comply with the lawful directions of a police officer given during the fulfillment of their duties.

The counsel however said that Dhyani's post was admitted, that corpus is leader of a political party and he had boarded train from Rishikesh to New Delhi to participate in protest; all this was admitted. He said that corpus was released in 24 hours. 

“Violation of Section 163 of the BNSS is punishable under Section 223 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), which is a cognizable offence. He (Dhyani) was there without permission, and when he was stopped, he refused to seek permission,” the counsel said.

The counsel said that there was no problem in participation in protest but there was a Section 144 CrPC order (prohibiting gathering of four or more) regarding the Sansad March (march to the Parliament). 

To this the court orally said, "He has right to move anywhere in the country who are you to stop? Where is cognizable offence?...Section 144 offence toh wahan (Delhi) commit hoga (Section 144 offence will be committed there)...What territorial jurisdiction did you have here (Uttarakhand)?".

To this, the State's counsel said, “If a cognizable offence is being committed anywhere in the country...”

The court however, while reading a document, orally said, "This is gunda gardi...What lawful direction you have? 'You dont go to Delhi..you don't go to join the march'. Delhi police will take care of it. Who are you to stop?...Please read what have you written...'sarkaar ki chavvi' (image of government)...What are you doing in this country?...Are you here to protect image of government or constitutional right of an individual. The way Police is behaving is absurd". 

The court thereafter issued notice to the respondent authorities and asked them to file their response in four weeks. 

Before parting the court further orally said, "You cannot do it. Which means that if one is going to Haldwani and there is a protest, then don't go. Police man will say don't go and this is Section 172 BNSS. Sir it will be anarchy...We are living under the Constitution. Where we have Article 19 and 21". 

As the State's counsel urged that there was reason of national security the court further said, "This is not National Security. In the name of national security and Sarkaar ki chavi don't harass people". 

On Monday the high court had questioned the police over the circumstances in which Prabhat Dhyani was detained. The Court also sought an explanation from the police as to why Dhyani—an adult—was allegedly handed over to his mother after being released, instead of being set free.

The petitioner's counsel argued yesterday that Dhyani had been illegally detained first by the Railway Police and Rishikesh Police, and subsequently by the Ramnagar Police. She said that she had received a telephonic communication indicating that the police were in the process of releasing Dhyani and completing the necessary formalities.

She nevertheless questioned the authority under which the Uttarakhand Police had detained him. On the other hand, the State initially sought time to place on record documents explaining the circumstances of the detention. However, during the course of the hearing, the State's counsel informed the Court that Dhyani had been released and handed over to the custody of his mother, Uma Dhyani.

The petition contends that Dhyani was apprehended in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner without adherence to due process.

It states that, upon learning that Dhyani had allegedly been taken into custody at Ramnagar police station, the petitioner personally visited the station and submitted a written representation seeking disclosure of the detenue's whereabouts, the authority under which he had been detained, the grounds of detention, and permission to communicate with him.

However, according to the petition, police officials neither acknowledged receipt of the representation nor furnished any information regarding Dhyani.

The plea further states that Dhyani suffers from multiple health issues requiring regular medical attention and that his continued detention without any communication regarding his health and well-being gave rise to serious concerns about his safety.

Apart from seeking Dhyani's production, the petition seeks directions to the police to place on record all documents relating to his detention or arrest, including the legal authority under which he was apprehended, the grounds for his detention, the arrest memorandum, the place of detention, and all other records justifying his custody.

The petitioner has also sought directions to preserve CCTV footage from Rishikesh railway station and the Government Railway Police premises.

Case title: Lal Mani v/s State Of Uttarakhand and others

HABC/35/2026

Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner assisted by advocate Abhijay Negi

Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.