Advertisement
X

‘You Are Not Gen Z’: Delhi High Court Questions Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka Over Custody Challenge

When advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that Das was 27 and Ranka was 32, the judge asked, “Then you are not Gen Z. What is Gen Z?”

Saurav Das Photo: PTI
Summary
  • The Delhi High Court questioned CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka over their challenge to an extension of judicial custody.

  • Justice Subramonium Prasad asked why the activists had approached the High Court under Article 226 instead of pursuing a revision petition.

  • The court also raised questions about alleged repeated breaches of peace bonds and the imposition of stricter surety conditions.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das, 27, and Ashutosh Ranka, 32, over their challenge to the extension of their judicial custody in connection with an alleged attempt to unfurl the national flag at Jantar Mantar in violation of prohibitory orders. During the hearing, Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked that the two activists did not belong to Generation Z after being informed of their ages, Bar and Bench reported.

When advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that Das was 27 and Ranka was 32, the judge asked, “Then you are not Gen Z. What is Gen Z?” After being told that the term generally refers to people born after 1997, the court reiterated, “Then you are not Gen Z.”

Court Questions Alternative Legal Remedy

Justice Prasad was hearing a petition challenging the Special Executive Magistrate’s (SEM) October 19 order extending the activists’ judicial custody until October 21 in preventive proceedings initiated under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

According to news agency ANI, the petitioners sought the quashing of the order, their immediate release and a stay on the custody extension, arguing that their continued detention was illegal and violated their right to personal liberty.

However, the court questioned why they had approached it under Article 226 of the Constitution when a revision petition could provide an alternative legal remedy against the impugned order.

“Your second incident. You are a person who has actually broken a bond. Your remedy actually lies in revision,” the court observed, according to Bar and Bench.

The judge also questioned why the activists had approached the High Court when their matter was scheduled to come up before the SEM later in the day. He asked whether the order was revisable and suggested that the petitioners consider withdrawing their plea, await the outcome of the proceedings before the magistrate and then assess their legal options.

Advertisement

“What if you are released today? This is not the final hearing today. I will have to ask the State to file a response,” the court said, according to Bar and Bench.

Court Raises Concerns Over Alleged Breach Of Peace Bonds

The court also questioned whether authorities were justified in imposing stricter surety conditions after the petitioners allegedly breached their peace bonds for a second time.

“Once you have broken peace for the second time, are the authorities not entitled to insist upon everything?” the judge asked, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The court noted that the petitioners had furnished bonds earlier but had allegedly returned to the protest site after Jantar Mantar was denotified as a designated venue for demonstrations. It also observed that the challenge to the denotification was pending before the Supreme Court and that the notification had not been stayed.

Advertisement

Expressing concern that protests could escalate and draw more participants in violation of prohibitory orders, the judge said, “The two petitioners here are at the forefront. When you go and break a barricade, the chances of 10 or 20 more people in violation of 163 are very high.”

The judge also referred to instances in other countries where demonstrations had escalated into violence, including arson. He highlighted the role of police permissions in preventing disruptions and keeping unwanted elements out of gatherings.

The hearing concerned the legality of the custody extension and the appropriate legal remedy available to the petitioners; the allegations against the activists remain subject to the proceedings.

CJP Protests

Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka along with CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke have been leading protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar due to alleged irregularities in the SIR process.

A successful protest was organised in Mumbai but a subsequent planned protest in Delhi was met with government crackdown. The CJP leaders were initially detained straight after landing at Delhi airport but were released later after reportedly signing surety bonds.

Advertisement

Abhijeet Dipke has since been free and has stated that he is waiting for Das and Ranka's release before planning any further activities.

Published At:
US