New Delhi: The Delhi Executive Magistrate’s Court ordered the release of CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and party leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das on Sunday. The three were detained by Delhi Police on Saturday, October 10, shortly after arriving in the national capital for the planned protest at Jantar Mantar.

CJP legal affairs head Ratna Singh said the release was subject to a condition that the leaders would not engage in a breach of peace for one year. Their counsel, advocate Soutik Banerjee, confirmed their release, saying, “All three of them have been released. They can leave from here now.”

The leaders were produced before the Court of Special Executive Magistrate at the Delhi Cantonment police station after being placed under preventive arrest.

Legal provisions invoked by Delhi Police

According to the reported details, the police invoked Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Section 126 empowers an Executive Magistrate to require a person considered likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity to show cause and, where legally justified, execute a bond for maintaining peace. The bond may cover a period of up to one year.

Section 170 provides for preventive arrest without a warrant where a police officer has reason to believe that a person is planning to commit a cognisable offence and the offence cannot otherwise be prevented. Detention under this provision is limited to 24 hours unless further detention is authorised under another legal provision.

These are preventive measures; their use does not, by itself, establish that a person has committed a criminal offence.

Detentions amid heightened security in Delhi

The three leaders were detained amid heightened security arrangements ahead of the CJP protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Delhi Police had cited the absence of permission for the planned demonstration, while the party and Opposition leaders criticised the restrictions.

According to figures attributed to Delhi Police, around 2,500 protesters were detained across the capital on Saturday, in addition to approximately 1,000 people picked up during preventive operations overnight ahead of the protest.

The wider security measures also triggered a dispute over restrictions on public transport and the right to peaceful assembly. A separate plea filed by CJP legal affairs head Ratna Singh seeking an FIR against police personnel over her alleged illegal detention was dismissed by a Delhi court on Saturday.

Supreme Court hearing over detentions and transport restrictions

The detentions and restrictions have also become the subject of legal challenges before the Supreme Court. The court is scheduled to hold a special sitting on Sunday to hear pleas concerning the detention of protesters, including political leaders, students, journalists, lawyers and others.

The court is also expected to consider a contempt petition alleging that restrictions on Metro and railway services violated its earlier directions. The allegations are matters for judicial consideration and should not be treated as established findings.

The Supreme Court proceedings will address questions about the legality of the measures taken during the protest, including the balance between preventive policing, public order and the right to peaceful assembly.

What the release means

The release of the three CJP leaders ends their immediate detention, but it does not settle the wider dispute over the police response to the planned demonstration.

The one-year peace condition is a significant part of the release order. Section 126 of the BNSS provides a legal framework for requiring a bond to maintain peace, subject to the applicable procedure. The precise terms of the magistrate’s order and any bond requirements would determine the obligations imposed on the individuals concerned.

The case also raises broader questions about preventive detention during political demonstrations. Police can take preventive action where statutory conditions are met, but such action remains subject to legal safeguards and judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the separate petitions may clarify the legal issues surrounding the detentions and transport restrictions. Until the court rules on the allegations, claims of unlawful detention or contempt should be attributed to the petitioners rather than presented as established conclusions.