New Delhi: Before being released by the special executive magistrate (SEM) late Wednesday evening, Cockroach Janta Party co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka faced several questions in Delhi High Court earlier in the day.The duo had approached the court challenging the extension of their judicial custody by the SEM and later withdrew the plea after the high court advised them to await the outcome of the hearing scheduled before the special executive magistrate and approach the appellate court if their grievance continues.Justice Subramonium Prasad of the high court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not an appropriate remedy for a “repeat case” of violating a peace bond.During the brief hearing, Justice Prasad made oral observations, voicing his concerns over the conduct of the two CJP members.The high court pointed out that the petitioners had violated a bond by entering a denotified protest site, and questioned if the police weren’t entitled to seek a “stricter” surety in a “repeat case”.Justice Prasad said once the petitioners “have broken peace for the second time, are the authorities not entitled to insist upon everything?”The court wondered if it should enter into the merits of the SEM’s decision or let “the events run their course.”The judge remarked that the questions surrounding the locus and motive of the petitioners were also significant and have to be examined, considering that while they were initially involved in a student protest, there was even a statement on “regime change” and this time, their cause was different.“Now there is another cause. People remain the same, causes change. All these questions assume significance. When the issue is breach of peace, it is important to know who you are; what is your motive, what are you trying to do, the purpose of your organisation. You suddenly hear something like ‘regime change’….. In a hearing like this, it is not necessary for us to go into this. Keep the debate for an appropriate proceeding,” the judge said.The counsel for the petitioners, advocate Abhik Chimni, sought the high court’s immediate intervention and argued that they ought to be released on a personal bond as the SEM has no jurisdiction to extend their judicial custody. He argued that the SEM’s insistence on a surety was not sustained in law.Justice Prasad told Chimni that “when there is apprehension of peace and tranquillity (being broken), all these questions will assume importance” and emphasised that the purpose behind police permission for a protest is not to stop anyone but prevent “unwanted persons” from joining a protest group and ensure that a peaceful agitation does not escalate into violence.“The two petitioners here are at the forefront. When you go and break a barricade, the chances of 10 or 20 more people violating the 163 (section on prohibitory order) are very bright. There might be persons who might not be in your control and who might do things. We have seen it happening outside our country. Students’ protests have now gone into arson, looting, burning,” the court said.The court sought to know the age of the petitioners and was informed that Das and Ranka were 27 and 31 years old, respectively. The court then remarked in a lighter vein, “That means you are not Gen Z.”“They are an inspiration,” their lawyer responded.
