Uttarakhand High Court Criticizes Police Over Detention of Protestor

DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand high court on Tuesday came down hard on police over the detention of Prabhat Dhyani, 62, at Rishikesh railway station while he was travelling to Delhi to join a CJP-led protest, asking whether police were meant to protect people’s constitutional rights or govt’s image. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddharth Sah heard the matter for the second consecutive day and expressed strong displeasure over the police action. “This amounts to anarchy. We are living under a constitutional regime. Do not harass people in the name of national security or govt’s image,” the court said. Dhyani, president of Uttarakhand Parivartan Party, had announced on social media that he would participate in the protest in support of students agitating against alleged NEET paper leak and examination-system failures. After he was stopped at Rishikesh railway station on Sunday, UPP secretary Lal Mani filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his production before HC. State counsel told the court that Dhyani had been released within 24 hours of detention. Questioning the legal basis for stopping him, the bench said every citizen had the right to move anywhere in the country. “Everyone has the right to move anywhere in the country; who are you to stop them?” the court asked. When govt counsel submitted that Dhyani was going to join a protest, HC asked, “Is participating in a protest a cognisable offence? This is sheer gundagardi by police. What legal directives had police issued?” Govt counsel first cited BNSS section 163, which empowers an executive magistrate to issue urgent temporary orders to prevent unrest, public nuisance or danger. Justice Maithani asked why Dhyani was stopped in Uttarakhand when the section 163 order had been issued by Delhi Police, observing that any alleged violation of that order would be a matter for Delhi Police. The state then referred to BNSS section 172, which allows police to take into custody persons who fail to comply with lawful directions of a police officer. The bench, however, sought to know what lawful direction had been issued to Dhyani and whether any material existed to justify removing him from the train. HC expressed further displeasure after examining the police daily diary, which said Dhyani’s participation in the protest could tarnish govt’s image. “Are you here to protect govt’s image or safeguard constitutional rights of people?” the court asked, adding that authorities could not harass citizens in the name of security or image management. The court directed that the officer who removed Dhyani from the train and detained him at the railway station be made a party to the case. It issued notices to DGP, SSPs of Dehradun and Nainital, the concerned SHO and Government Railway Police, seeking their responses, and fixed Sept 16 for the next hearing.