High Court Questions Maintainability of CGP Members’ Plea Against Custody Extension

The High Court questioned the maintainability of a petition filed by members of the CGP challenging the extension of their custody by a Special Executive Magistrate. The bench asked why the petitioners had approached the High Court instead of pursuing the statutory remedies available before the district magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

During the hearing, the court referred to a peace bond furnished by the protesters, observing that it had allegedly been breached the following day at Jantar Mantar, a site where protests had been de-notified. The observation formed part of the court’s examination of the circumstances surrounding the protesters’ custody and the legal challenge to its extension.

Court Questions Protesters’ Representation Claims

The bench also raised questions about the protesters’ ages and their claim to represent a Gen Z student agitation. It pointed out that two individuals, aged 27 and 31, were involved while different issues, including voting rights, were being raised.

Advertisement

The court’s remarks highlighted questions about the identity of the petitioners, the nature of the protest and the grounds on which they were challenging the magistrate’s order.

Focus on Legal Procedure, Not Merits

The bench clarified the limited scope of its examination in a writ petition. It observed that the High Court primarily considers whether the prescribed legal procedure was followed, rather than re-examining the factual merits considered by the Special Executive Magistrate.

The distinction is significant because a challenge to the procedure followed by an authority differs from an appeal against its assessment of the facts. By questioning the availability of alternative statutory remedies, the court examined whether the petitioners had followed the appropriate legal route before invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The hearing therefore focused on the maintainability of the petition, the availability of remedies under the BNSS and the procedural limits of judicial review. The observations do not, by themselves, establish a final ruling on the underlying allegations against the protesters.