The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the maintainability of pleas filed by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka challenging the extension of their custody, observing that the matter was still before the court of first instance and asking why they had approached the High Court at this stage.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observations while hearing the petitions assailing an order of Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj extending the custody of the two petitioners in connection with the protests at Jantar Mantar.
The petitioners have questioned the legality of the custody extension, contending that the magistrate erroneously rejected the sureties furnished on their behalf and directed their continued detention without due consideration of the applicable statutory safeguards. They have also alleged that the impugned order failed to reflect an independent judicial assessment of the circumstances warranting their continued custody.
During the hearing, the High Court questioned whether the petitioners ought to exhaust the remedies available before the competent forum before invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Bench indicated that the challenge could be pursued before the appropriate court in accordance with the prescribed procedure, with recourse to the High Court thereafter, if legally warranted.
The petitions arise from proceedings initiated against the two CJP leaders following their arrest in connection with the protests. The petitioners have alleged that the Special Executive Magistrate rejected their sureties without affording them a meaningful opportunity to establish their validity and extended their custody without adequately scrutinising the grounds advanced by the police.
They have further contended that the impugned order suffers from procedural infirmities and fails to satisfy the legal requirements governing detention in proceedings of this nature. Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, they have asserted that their continued deprivation of personal liberty cannot be sustained in the absence of strict compliance with the safeguards prescribed by law.
The High Court’s observations centred on the propriety of invoking its writ jurisdiction while proceedings concerning the custody extension remained pending before the lower forum. The matter raises questions regarding the appropriate procedural remedy available to persons challenging orders passed in preventive proceedings and the circumstances in which the High Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Court’s final order on the petitions is awaited.
The post Why invoke High Court jurisdiction when lower court is seized of matter: Delhi High Court questions CJP leaders plea against custody extension appeared first on India Legal.