The Uttarakhand High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the state government’s actions following the detention of Prabhat Dhyani, the chief of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party. Dhyani was detained after he announced via social media his intention to join protests in Delhi at Jantar Mantar. These demonstrations were led by youth activists and supported by Sonam Wangchuk, who was on a hunger strike.
Court Questions Detention
A bench comprising Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah scrutinized the state’s rationale for detaining Dhyani. The court described the state’s actions as ‘gundagardi’ or hooliganism, questioning the legal grounds on which Dhyani was prevented from traveling to Delhi. Justice Maithani pointedly asked, “What is the lawful direction that was disobeyed?”
Detention and Legal Proceedings
Dhyani was intercepted on July 19 at the Rishikesh Railway Station while en route to Delhi. Following this, his associate, Lal Mani, filed a petition seeking Dhyani’s release and questioning the legality of his detention. Dhyani was located at Ramnagar Police Station in Nainital and was released within 24 hours, an action reported to the Court.
State’s Justification and Court’s Response
The state defended its actions by referencing Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates compliance with lawful police directions. They also cited prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS, arguing that violating such orders constitutes a cognizable offense nationwide.
Justice Maithani challenged the state’s counsel to specify which lawful direction Dhyani had disobeyed. Additionally, the judge questioned the Uttarakhand Police’s involvement in potential offenses anticipated to occur in Delhi, highlighting the lack of jurisdiction.
More Read
Legal and Constitutional Rights
The court emphasized the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly under Articles 19 and 21, which protect freedom of movement and personal liberty. Justice Maithani rebuked the state’s claims of national security and the need to maintain the government’s image, asserting that these arguments were not applicable in this case.
Next Steps
The Court has requested a response from the police officer responsible for Dhyani’s detention and adjourned the case for further proceedings. Advocates Snigdha Tiwari, Abhijay Negi, and Harsh Vardhan Bhatt represented the petitioner, Lal Mani.
