Student Activist Detention | HC asks Police to explain Legal Basis, orders CCTV Footage Preservation

On Monday, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to preserve CCTV footage of the Special Cell premises while hearing a habeas corpus plea concerning the detention of student activist Rudra, who was released after the Court took up the matter a day earlier. The proceedings have brought renewed scrutiny to the manner in which several student and labour activists were detained in the national capital, with the police maintaining that the First Information Report in the case is confidential and will only be placed before the Court.

The matter stems from habeas corpus petitions filed by families of multiple activists who alleged that the students were picked up by police personnel and taken to undisclosed locations without being produced before a court. Counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that some of the students had reported being subjected to violence and intimidation during detention. The controversy intensified when Rudra’s family stated that he remained untraceable even after the police claimed all detainees had been released.

During the hearing, Rudra’s counsel alleged that he bore visible injury marks on his body due to custodial assault. Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari submitted that the activists were detained pursuant to the registration of an FIR and that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation. He also opposed supplying the FIR copy to the petitioners, asserting that the document was confidential and would be produced only before the Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice on the habeas corpus petition and directed that CCTV footage of the Special Cell premises be preserved and produced if required. The Bench also reiterated its earlier direction issued on Sunday, requiring preservation of footage from the locations where the students were allegedly picked up.

The Court emphasised adherence to procedural safeguards, observing, “All we are saying is that there is a procedure and you must follow it.” While declining the request to constitute a medical board to examine Rudra’s alleged injuries, the Court directed the police to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances and legal authority under which the activists were detained.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 27.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.