Uttarakhandski visoki sud kritizira državu zbog pritvaranja aktiviste koja se htjela pridružiti prosvjedu CJP-a

The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday condemned the state police for detaining political activist Prabhat Dhyani after he expressed intent to join the Cockroach Janta Party’s protest in Delhi. The court, led by Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah, accused the state of engaging in “gundagardi,” or hooliganism, during the incident. Dhyani, a leader of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party, was detained at Rishikesh railway station on Sunday following a Facebook post in which he announced his intention to participate in the protest led by activist Sonam Wangchuk. Wangchuk, who has been on a hunger strike, is part of a broader movement demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over allegations of mismanagement in competitive examination systems. On Monday, hundreds of protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, only to face tear gas and baton charges from security forces. The protest, known as the Cockroach Janta Party rally, has drawn attention due to its demands and the confrontations with law enforcement. Dhyani's detention followed his online announcement of participation in the Delhi-based demonstration. His associate, Lal Mani, filed a petition before the High Court seeking his immediate release. Within 24 hours of being traced to the Ramnagar police station in Nainital, Dhyani was released. The court was informed of his release on Monday, according to reports from Bar and Bench. During proceedings, the state government’s legal representative cited Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that Dhyani had violated lawful police directions. Justice Maithani challenged this justification, questioning the nature of the directive allegedly given to Dhyani. He posed the query directly to the counsel: “What is the lawful direction [that Dhyani disobeyed], sir?” The judge emphasized that the act of participating in a protest does not constitute a cognizable offense unless explicitly prohibited by law. The state government’s counsel further argued that public gathering restrictions in place in Delhi made defiance of such orders a cognizable offense nationwide. However, the court clarified that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of Delhi Police, not Uttarakhand authorities. The counsel also referenced national security concerns, asserting that the detention was necessary to safeguard the government’s reputation. Justice Maithani countered this argument, challenging the prioritization of governmental image over individual constitutional rights. He questioned the counsel: “Are you there to protect the image of the government or the constitutional rights of an individual?” The exchange highlighted tensions between state authority and civil liberties in the context of protests. As the case unfolds, the focus remains on the legality of detentions and the balance between public order and fundamental freedoms. The outcome of this judicial review could set a precedent for similar cases involving activists and their right to peaceful assembly. The court’s stance suggests a growing scrutiny of state actions in suppressing dissent, particularly in politically charged environments.