Dehradun: The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the police for detaining 62-year-old Prabhat Dhyani at Rishikesh railway station while he was travelling to Delhi to participate in a protest organised by the Campaign for Justice and Peace (CJP). The court questioned whether the police were tasked with safeguarding citizens’ constitutional rights or protecting the government’s image.
A division bench comprising Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddharth Sah heard the matter for the second consecutive day and expressed serious concern over the police action. Calling the detention “anarchy,” the bench observed, “We are living under a constitutional regime. Do not harass people in the name of national security or the government’s image.”
Dhyani, president of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party (UPP), had announced on social media that he intended to join a protest supporting students demonstrating against the alleged NEET examination paper leak and broader concerns over the examination system. Following his detention on Sunday, UPP secretary Lal Mani filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his production before the High Court. The state informed the court that Dhyani had been released within 24 hours.
The bench questioned the legal basis for preventing Dhyani from travelling, emphasising that every citizen has the constitutional right to move freely throughout the country. “Everyone has the right to move anywhere in the country. Who are you to stop them?” the court asked.
When government counsel argued that Dhyani was travelling to participate in a protest, the bench responded by asking whether joining a protest constituted a cognisable offence. It further remarked that the police action amounted to “sheer gundagardi” and sought clarification on the legal authority under which Dhyani had been stopped.
The state initially relied on Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers an executive magistrate to issue temporary preventive orders to maintain public order. However, Justice Maithani questioned why Dhyani was stopped in Uttarakhand when the prohibitory order had been issued by the Delhi Police, observing that any alleged violation would fall within the jurisdiction of Delhi authorities.
Government counsel then referred to Section 172 of the BNSS, which permits police to detain individuals who fail to comply with lawful directions. The court, however, asked what specific lawful direction had been issued to Dhyani and whether there was any material to justify removing him from the train.
The bench also examined the police daily diary, which reportedly stated that Dhyani’s participation in the protest could tarnish the government’s image. Expressing further displeasure, the court asked, “Are you here to protect the government’s image or safeguard the constitutional rights of the people?” It reiterated that citizens could not be harassed under the pretext of national security or image management.
The High Court directed that the police officer who removed Dhyani from the train and detained him be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Notices were also issued to the Director General of Police, the Senior Superintendents of Police of Dehradun and Nainital, the concerned Station House Officer, and the Government Railway Police, seeking their responses. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 16.
