CJP Challenges Custody of Saurav Das & Ashutosh Ranka in Delhi HC

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) approached the Delhi High Court seeking an urgent hearing against the extension of judicial custody of its leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. The case has brought attention to preventive arrest, the powers of Special Executive Magistrates (SEMs), personal liberty and the need for safeguards against the misuse of preventive detention powers.

Why in the News?

On October 20, 2026, the CJP sought an urgent night hearing in the Delhi High Court, challenging the continued custody of its leaders.

• The party alleged that delays in bail proceedings were preventing the release of its leaders.
• Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were detained on October 13, 2026, after allegedly climbing over a locked gate to enter Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a designated protest site.
• They had displayed the national flag and raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
• On October 19, a Special Executive Magistrate at Mandir Marg police station ordered their judicial remand for another two days after an initial five-day custody period.
• The Delhi High Court was closed during the week due to Dasara, prompting the party to seek an urgent hearing.

Who Are Special Executive Magistrates (SEMs)?

Special Executive Magistrates (SEMs) are executive officials who exercise specific magistrate powers, mainly relating to preventive measures and the maintenance of public order.

• Administrative control: Executive Magistrates function under the executive branch of the government.
• Powers: SEMs exercise limited powers, particularly in proceedings intended to prevent breaches of peace.
• Delhi-specific provision: The Delhi Police Act empowers the Central Government to authorise the Police Commissioner and subordinate officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) or above to exercise specified powers of District and Executive Magistrates.
• Judicial role: Unlike judicial magistrates, SEMs do not conduct criminal trials as part of their executive functions.

Difference Between Executive Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates

Police Custody and Judicial Custody

Police custody means that an accused person remains in the physical custody of the police for investigation and questioning. Judicial custody means that an accused person is detained under the authority of a court or Magistrate.

Police Custody.

• Purpose: Investigation and interrogation.
• Place of detention: Police station lock-up.
• Legal safeguard: Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) ordinarily prohibits detention beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate, excluding the time necessary for the journey to court.
• Further detention: Requires lawful authorisation by a competent Magistrate.

Judicial Custody

• Place of detention: Jail or prison.
• Legal provision: Section 167 of the CrPC provides for remand during an investigation, subject to applicable legal requirements.
• Extension: Further detention requires authorisation in accordance with the law.
• Release: The accused may seek bail from the competent court or become eligible for release under applicable legal provisions.

Difference Between Police Custody and Judicial Custody

Note: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replaced the CrPC for proceedings governed by the new law from July 1, 2024. The applicable provisions and transitional rules must be considered in individual cases.

Preventive Arrest and Its Legal Background

Preventive arrest involves action taken to prevent a person from committing an anticipated offence or disturbing public order, rather than punishment for a crime already established.

• Preventive powers are intended to prevent breaches of peace and maintain public order.
• Under the BNSS, preventive provisions continue in a revised criminal procedure framework.
• Their exercise must follow the prescribed legal procedure and constitutional safeguards.
• Excessive or arbitrary use of these powers can affect the right to personal liberty and the right to peaceful protest.

Historical Background

• The historical roots of preventive powers can be traced to England’s Justices of Peace Act, 1361, which empowered officials to prevent breaches of peace and require sureties for good behaviour.
• Similar provisions entered India's criminal procedure framework during the colonial period.
• They continued after Independence under the CrPC and were carried forward, in revised form, under the BNSS, 2023.

Judicial Concerns Over the Misuse of Preventive Powers

The Court has raised concern about the misuse of preventive arrest powers, particularly when people are detained without proper reasons or without following the required legal procedure.

1. Sunil Batra Case, 1984

The Delhi High Court received an application from Tihar Jail by death-row prisoner Sunil Batra, which raised concerns about the alleged misuse of preventive arrest provisions.

• The application highlighted alleged unjustified arrests under Section 107 of the CrPC.
• It raised concerns about people being detained without following the prescribed procedure.
• The Court criticised the risks of placing citizens’ liberty under executive officials exercising magistrate powers without adequate safeguards.
• It directed that individuals should be informed of the reasons for requiring them to execute a bond.
• It also emphasised procedural requirements where detention followed a failure to provide sureties.

2. Delhi High Court Directions, 2018

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel, again raised concerns about procedural irregularities in preventive proceedings. The Court issued several directions and recommendations:

• Review of detention: Judicial custody under preventive arrest provisions should not exceed seven days at a time, with weekly review by SEMs of the need for continued detention.
• Oversight mechanism: The Lieutenant Governor was asked to consider a mechanism for periodically reviewing the exercise of preventive powers, potentially involving retired district judges.
• Clear designation: The Court suggested renaming SEMs as “Special Executive Officers” to avoid confusion with judicial magistrates.
• Separate accommodation: It suggested considering separate spaces in jails for people detained under preventive provisions.
• Procedural safeguards: Orders should be reasoned and detailed rather than issued mechanically using standard, copy-pasted forms.

The Court also expressed concern about the disproportionate impact of preventive powers on minority communities and economically weaker sections, including people unable to provide the required sureties.

Other Judicial Interventions

The court has taken steps to prevent the misuse of preventive arrest powers. They have said that officials must follow the law, give proper reasons for detention and protect people’s freedom.

1. Madhya Pradesh High Court Ruling and Delhi High Court, 2007

• The Delhi High Court endorsed a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling concerning proceedings under Sections 107, 116 and 151 of the CrPC.
• The ruling stressed the need to record statements of investigating officers or witnesses before initiating preventive proceedings.
• It also opposed sending detainees to jail for failure to provide sureties without following the required procedure.
• Executive Magistrates were expected to issue detailed, reasoned orders rather than mechanically signing standard forms.

2. Narmada Bachao Andolan Case, 2007–2008

The case concerned activist Medha Patkar and other protesters opposing the Sardar Sarovar Dam project.

• In July 2007, Patkar and other protesters were arrested in Madhya Pradesh under Section 151 of the CrPC for allegedly attempting to breach the peace.
• Some protesters were released on personal bonds, while others were sent to jail after refusing to execute bonds.
• In 2008, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the arrests, carried out without following due process, violated the fundamental right to peaceful protest.
• The Court also held that demanding bonds without a sufficient basis for apprehending a disturbance of public peace or order, and detaining people for refusing to execute them, violated personal liberty.
• The State government was directed to pay compensation of ₹10,000 to each person found to have been wrongfully arrested and detained.

Conclusion

The CJP's request for an urgent hearing has brought renewed attention to preventive arrest and the powers of Special Executive Magistrates. Earlier judicial interventions, including the Delhi High Court's rulings in 1984 and 2018 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling in the Narmada Bachao Andolan case, underline the importance of due process. Preventive powers must be used only within the limits of law, with adequate safeguards, regular review and respect for personal liberty and peaceful protest.