Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have approached the Delhi High Court challenging a Special Executive Magistrate’s decision to reject their sureties and extend their judicial custody until October 21, 2026. The petition challenges the legality of their continued detention and raises concerns about personal liberty, procedural fairness and the exercise of preventive powers by executive authorities.
The two leaders were detained on October 13 following a protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The demonstration reportedly took place after the site was removed from the list of designated protest venues. Protesters raised slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Election Commission has denied allegations of political bias in the revision process.
Following their detention, Das and Ranka were produced before a Special Executive Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody for five days on October 14. Their custody was subsequently extended by another two days on October 19, keeping them in Tihar Jail until October 21.
The dispute centres on the rejection of the sureties submitted on behalf of the two leaders. According to reports, the magistrate found the sureties unsatisfactory following an inquiry. The reasons reportedly included discrepancies between photographs on surety documents and Aadhaar cards, concerns about the adequacy of identity verification, and doubts about whether the sureties could ensure the leaders’ compliance with the conditions imposed by the authorities. The magistrate also referred to concerns about a possible breach of peace and the prospect of further disturbances.
The CJP leaders have challenged these findings before the Delhi High Court, arguing that their continued detention is arbitrary and infringes their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Their petition reportedly contends that the authorities rejected the sureties despite the submission of supporting documents, including personal bonds and fixed deposit receipts. They have also questioned the justification for extending their custody on the basis of apprehensions about public disorder.
The petitioners are seeking urgent judicial intervention and their release. Their challenge places the magistrate’s decision under scrutiny, particularly with regard to the grounds for rejecting the sureties, the necessity of continued detention and compliance with the procedural safeguards governing preventive proceedings.
Delhi Police has reportedly opposed their release, citing concerns about public order, alleged violations of protest restrictions and the possibility of further mobilisation. The authorities have maintained that preventive action was warranted in view of the potential for disturbances. These claims remain part of the dispute and must be assessed in light of the relevant evidence and applicable law.
The case raises broader questions about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting constitutional freedoms. While authorities have powers under the law to take preventive measures in appropriate circumstances, such powers must be exercised within statutory limits and remain subject to judicial scrutiny. The rejection of sureties and the continuation of custody must likewise be supported by legally sustainable reasons.
The magistrate’s proceedings were scheduled to continue on October 21, while the outcome of the High Court challenge remained unconfirmed. The court’s consideration of the matter is expected to determine whether the challenged order and the continued detention can be sustained under the applicable legal and constitutional framework.