The Uttarakhand High Court has questioned the State government over the detention of an adult political activist and the decision to release him into his mother’s custody rather than simply set him free.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah also sought an explanation for the legal basis of the detention of Prabhat Dhyani, national president of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party.
“The Court would also like to know as to why an adult is given into the custody of his mother and why he was not set free?” the Bench observed. “The first and foremost question would be, under what circumstances and under what provisions of law, the corpus Prabhat Dhyani was detained?”
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 21.
The proceedings arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by Lal Mani, secretary of the Uttarakhand Parivartan Party, after Dhyani was allegedly intercepted while travelling from Rishikesh towards Delhi.
According to the petition, Dhyani had announced on Facebook that he intended to join a protest march led by Sonam Wangchuk at Jantar Mantar. He was allegedly stopped at Rishikesh Railway Station while on his way to Delhi.
Dhyani reportedly managed to make a brief phone call saying that he had been arrested, after which the call was disconnected. His family and associates were allegedly unable to ascertain his whereabouts through the night.
He was later traced to the Ramnagar police station in Nainital district. The petition claimed that neither an arrest memo nor the grounds of arrest or the place of detention had been disclosed.
The plea sought Dhyani’s production before the Court, disclosure of the complete arrest record, preservation of CCTV footage from Rishikesh Railway Station and the Government Railway Police, and a declaration that the detention was illegal. It also sought ₹1 crore in compensation for the alleged violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Snigdha Tiwari, informed the Bench that she had received information that the police were in the process of releasing Dhyani. She questioned the circumstances in which the police had detained him.
The State initially sought time to place the relevant documents before the Court. It later informed the Bench that Dhyani had been released into the custody of his mother, Uma Dhyani.
The petitioner’s counsel said she had not been informed of the release.
The High Court has now directed the State to produce the complete records relating to both the detention and the subsequent release.
The Bench has specifically sought answers to two questions: why an adult was handed over to a parent’s custody instead of being released outright, and under what legal authority and circumstances he was detained.
Lal Mani was represented by advocates Abhijay Negi, Snigdha Tiwari and Harsh Vardhan Bhatt. The State was represented by Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Joshi.
