OBC Youth Forced To Wash Another's Feet | MP High Court Asks Why State Detained Accused Under NSA Before Order Was Officially Uploaded

The Madhya Pradesh High Court asked the State authorities to explain why they detained the persons accused of forcing a young man from OBC community to wash another's feet before the Court's order directing action - including detention under the National Security Act- was officially uploaded.The Court was hearing a suo motu petition over the video showing a young man from the OBC Community being compelled to wash the feet of another person and consume the said water.On October 14, the division bench (comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal), took suo motu cognizance of the video of the event and passed an order directing the Damoh Administration to take action against the person. The said bench also directed to take action under the National Security Act against the accused persons. The suo motu case was, however, registered as a writ petition on October 15 at 11:39 AM. On October 15, the writ petition was considered by another bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh. This bench questioned why the police took action against the accused on October 14 itself when the matter was formally registered only on October 15. Also, the District Magistrate Damoh detained five accused persons under the NSA on October 14.The bench observed; "Thus, it is evident that, the Superintendent of Police, Damoh without waiting for registration of the writ petition which was registered on 15.10.2025 at 11:39:26 hours, has taken cognizance on oral orders without being officially communicated to him in the form of a signed copy". During the hearing, Senior Advocate Naman Nagrath argued that the suo motu cognizance taken by the Division Bench yesterday was "half-baked" and therefore not appropriate. He placed certain issues for consideration(i) Whether the Co-ordinate Bench exercised its discretion in an appropriate manner to exercise its Suo Motu power in taking the cause(ii) Whether the Co-ordinate Bench was justified in directing the Police Authorities to invoke provisions of the National Security Act, 1980, despite itself noting that such a type of action typically falls within executive discretion. Noting that the writ petition was registered on October 15, 11:39 AM, Nagrath submitted that the police acted prematurely on oral instruction, before any formal order was uploaded on the High Court's website. According to Nagrath, the police officials, on October 14, without orders being communicated via official means, detained four individuals, including Annu Pandey. Further, the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police also issued detention orders under the NSA on October 14, without waiting for formal orders to do so. Noting the interlocutory application filed by Senior Advocate Nagrath to stay the proceedings, the court observed that he had taken a U-turn from his stance. He first submitted that the four accused were detained, but later took a U-turn and stated that the NSA was not invoked. Additional Advocate General Janhavi Pandit claimed that the Superintendent of Police acted on the order dictated by the court during the hearing. It was also submitted that the court reader had called Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthy and handed over a WhatsApp copy of the order. Pandit also informed that the provision of Section 3(2) of the NSA was invoked against 5 people in compliance with the October 14 order. The court took on record the report of the State, noting that besides Section 3(2) of NSA, Section 196(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS were also added. The court noted that the SP, without waiting for a formal order, took cognizance based on oral orders. Therefore, the court directed the State to file a report on the following "(i) What action has been taken against the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat who had allegedly convened a meeting to admonish the so-called accused Mr. Kushwaha?(ii) What material was produced before the Superintendent of Police, Damoh and what was his take on the said material so to invoke provisions of National Security Act, 1980?(iii) Whether, without getting certified copy of the order dated 14.10.2025 and registration of the writ petition, Superintendent of Police was acting bonafidely and improprietely to pass order dated 14.10.2025 as has been placed before us by the learned Addl. Advocate General?"The court also took note that the Collector and District Magistrate passed the detention order on October 14 itself. Therefore, the court also directed the District Magistrate and the concerned Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit. The court also sought a reply from the YouTube Channels Satya Hindi-MP, Punjab Kesari and Lallantop regarding the correctness of material put on their social media platforms. The case was listed for October 17, 2025. Case Title: Court in its own motion v Director General of Police [W.P No. 41264/2025]Click here to read/download the Order

OBC Youth Forced To Wash Another's Feet | MP High Court Asks Why State Detained Accused Under NSA Before Order Was Officially Uploaded

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags