The Uttarakhand High Court has raised significant questions concerning the conduct of state police regarding the detention and subsequent release of an adult activist, Prabhat Dhyani, into his mother’s custody. During a session on Monday, a bench comprising Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah requested the state to elucidate the rationale behind Dhyani’s detention.
The case, initiated through a habeas corpus petition, challenges the legality of Dhyani’s detention. As the national president of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party, Dhyani’s predicament began after he announced on Facebook his intention to participate in Sonam Wangchuk’s march at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. En route from Rishikesh to Delhi, he was intercepted at the Rishikesh Railway Station. Dhyani managed a brief call before it was abruptly terminated, indicating his arrest. His whereabouts remained unknown to his family and associates until he was located at Ramnagar police station in Nainital, with no formal arrest documentation or detention grounds disclosed.
The petition, filed by Lal Mani, Secretary of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party, urges the court for Dhyani’s production, disclosure of arrest records, preservation of CCTV footage from the Rishikesh station, and a declaration of the detention’s illegality. Additionally, the petitioner seeks ₹1 crore in compensation, citing fundamental rights violations under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, referencing precedent cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.
During the hearing, advocate Snigdha Tiwari, representing the petitioner, informed the court of a recent development: the police were in the process of releasing Dhyani. She questioned the grounds of his initial detention. Meanwhile, Pankaj Joshi, the Additional Government Advocate for the state, initially requested additional time to provide documentation regarding Dhyani’s detention. However, he subsequently confirmed Dhyani’s release into his mother, Mrs. Uma Dhyani’s, custody, a fact of which the petitioner’s counsel was not aware at that moment.
The court has instructed the state to submit comprehensive records related to both the detention and the release of Dhyani. The justices have specifically asked why an adult was placed in parental custody instead of being released independently and under what legal framework the detention was executed.
More Read
Legal representatives for the parties included advocates Abhijay Negi, Snigdha Tiwari, and Harsh Vardhan Bhatt for the petitioner, and Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Joshi for the state. The matter is set for further deliberation on July 21.
