Officers Visited Nadeem Khan’s Residence Only To Make Inquiries: Delhi Police Tell HC, Court Issues Notice

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Police on a plea filed by Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) National Secretary Nadeem Khan alleging that the Police restricted his movement and prevented him from leaving his residence ahead of a proposed protest at Jantar Mantar.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma recorded the police’s submission that officers had been deployed only to make inquiries and that there were no restrictions on Khan’s movement at present.

During the hearing, court questioned the circumstances in which police personnel had allegedly entered Khan’s residence. “How can you enter the house of this man?” court asked, while observing that the police had the right to perform their duties but questioning how they could enter a person’s house in such a manner.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, counsel submitted that the police had not detained Khan. The officers had visited his residence only to make inquiries based on information that, despite denial of permission, he might still proceed to participate in the proposed protest.

The police sought time to file its response to the allegations.

Counsel for Khan, advocate Shahrukh Alam, disputed the police’s account and submitted that officers had remained at the premises for several hours. The petitioner has alleged that he was prevented from leaving the premises on September 29 and was subsequently kept under surveillance.

Recording the submissions, court noted that Khan was currently in Kolkata for personal reasons and that there were no restrictions on his movement at present. It observed that the authorities should ensure there was no violation of the Supreme Court’s order passed in contempt proceedings.

On the issuance of notice in the plea, counsel for the police instead requested the court to grant the authorities time to file a status report.

“Notice will be construed in some other manner. Status report will bring everything out. He is not under any restrictions as of now. It should be good enough. Their main prayer on Section 163 BNSS is no more there. So generally, notice is issued on the main prayer. Now, the matter before the court is only factual. A status report will bring all the facts before the court,” counsel submitted.

In response, counsel for the petitioner insisted that notice be issued in the matter.

However, court issued notice to the respondents, observing, “The advance copy of the petition had been given to the police. They should have been ready with their response and a status report. Since it is not so, their intention is to get a court order".

Court directed the respondents’ counsel to place their response on record within two weeks.

Moreover, the petitioner also requested that he not be repeatedly contacted by the police over the phone. Court asked whether he had made any interim prayer seeking such relief, to which his counsel replied in the negative. Court then sought the Delhi Police’s response to the oral submission. Counsel for the police, noting that the station house officer (SHO) of the concerned police station was present in court, assured the court that the police would not make further calls to the petitioner.

Background

Khan, the national secretary of APCR and founder of the United Against Hate initiative, approached the Delhi High Court challenging his alleged detention by the Delhi Police on September 29 and apprehending further restrictions on his movement ahead of protests planned in the national capital on October 10.

According to his petition, police personnel attached to the Shaheen Bagh Police Station confined him at the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind headquarters in Abul Fazal Enclave from around 9:30 am to 5:30 pm. He alleged that the action was intended to prevent him from participating in a proposed peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar against attacks on places of worship and the exclusion of citizens through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Khan claimed that he was neither formally arrested nor informed in writing of the grounds for his alleged detention. He further alleged that he was not produced before a magistrate and that his relatives were not informed.

The petition stated that an application seeking permission to hold the protest had been submitted to the Parliament Street Police Station on September 19. Khan alleged that the police did not respond to the application and that he was subsequently informed through an anonymous phone call that permission had been denied. He claimed that his subsequent attempt to seek clarification from the station house officer did not yield a response.

Apart from challenging his alleged confinement, Khan has sought a declaration that the alleged detention, continued surveillance and harassment were illegal and unconstitutional. He has also sought compensation and a time-bound inquiry into the conduct of the police officers involved.

The plea further challenges an undated prohibitory order issued by the Delhi Police restricting assemblies of five or more people, demonstrations, dharnas, speeches and the display of banners or placards across the New Delhi district, including Jantar Mantar, without prior written permission.

Khan has contended that the restrictions impermissibly curtail the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, besides violating Articles 14 and 21.

High Court Had Earlier Declined Urgent Hearing

On October 9, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma declined to urgently hear Khan’s plea and said it would consider the matter on Monday.

Advocate Shahrukh Alam, appearing for Khan, had submitted that her client apprehended another instance of detention or house arrest after receiving an oral communication from the police. She argued that the matter concerned personal liberty and required urgent intervention.

The counsel also told the court that Khan had booked tickets to travel to Kolkata for personal reasons and was not planning to participate in the October 10 protest.

The bench questioned the basis for seeking immediate judicial intervention in the absence of any written communication restricting Khan’s movement.

“Who has stopped you from travelling?” the bench asked, observing that there was no written communication directing Khan not to travel or informing him that he would be placed under house arrest. It declined to pass an immediate order and listed the matter for October 12.

Khan’s petition also seeks the quashing of the prohibitory order to the extent that it restricts peaceful protests and related activities at Jantar Mantar.

Case Title: MOHAMMAD WASIQ NADEEM KHAN vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Hearing Date: October 12, 2026

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma