The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by Swatantra Bhardwaj challenging his arrest and custody in connection with the alleged assault on the father of a minor protester during a demonstration at Jantar Mantar, after the State informed the Court that the FIR under which he was arrested had not been quashed by the Supreme Court.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja was hearing Bhardwaj's plea, in which his counsel argued that the FIR forming the basis of his arrest had already been quashed and that his continued custody was therefore illegal.

The Court, however, held that once a judicial order regarding his custody had been passed, any challenge to that order had to be made before the concerned court.

'Where is the question of Habeas Corpus?'

Bhardwaj's counsel submitted that he was a student with no criminal antecedents and argued that the police had arrested him in an FIR which, according to the petitioner, had already been quashed on September 1 by the Supreme Court in NEET Paper Leak Protestors case.

Bhardwaj’s Counsel told the Court that Bhardwaj had been arrested in Bulandshahr, brought to Delhi and remained in custody despite the alleged quashing of the FIR. The counsel argued: "The police has the audacity of arresting me in an FIR which is supposed to be quashed, which does not exist in the eyes of law."

He also informed the Court about the sequence of remand orders: 1 day of police custody before the Special Court, followed by 1 day of judicial custody before the Duty Magistrate, and thereafter a 14-day judicial custody order passed just hours back.

The Bench, however, questioned the maintainability of habeas corpus once a judicial order authorising custody was already in existence.

The Court observed: "Now the only question is, once there is a legal order which has been passed, they can challenge it there. So where is the question of Habeas Corpus?"

Court asks whether FIR was actually quashed

The central issue during the hearing was whether the specific FIR under which Bhardwaj had been arrested was among the FIRs allegedly quashed by the Supreme Court.

Bhardwaj's counsel maintained that a recent Supreme Court order had quashed the FIR and argued that the arrest could therefore not be sustained.

The State disputed this contention. The State counsel told the Court that it had to be confirmed whether the particular FIR forming the basis of Bhardwaj’s arrest had actually been quashed.

The Bench then made the issue more specific: "This particular FIR for which he has been arrested, has it been quashed by the Supreme Court?"

The Court further noted that if Bhardwaj's case was that the FIR had already been quashed, that objection could be raised before the court which had passed the remand order.

'If that objection has been considered…challenge it'

The Court also asked whether Bhardwaj had raised the alleged quashing of the FIR before the concerned Magistrate/Special Court.

The Bench observed that if the objection had already been raised and rejected, the appropriate course would be to challenge that order. If it had not been raised, the High Court could not examine it for the first time through the habeas corpus proceedings.

The Court said: "If that objection has been considered and wrongly considered, please challenge it. If that objection has not been raised and therefore not considered, we can't interfere."

It added: "Either way, it is either a challenge to the order or nothing. How is a writ of Habeas Corpus maintainable?"

FIR concerns alleged hurt, casteist slurs

During the hearing, the State informed the Bench that the FIR in question was registered on June 23 in connection with the protest.

The State said the allegations included simple hurt and casteist slurs and referred to FIR No. 0062/2026, invoking Sections 115, 125 and 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court also asked whether the SC/ST Act provisions had been added subsequently. The State clarified that they were included on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded during investigation.

The Bench noted that these issues concerned the criminal proceedings themselves and could not simply be converted into grounds for habeas corpus without first establishing that the detention lacked legal authority.

SHO's statement recorded by Court

Towards the conclusion of the hearing, the Court dictated its order after recording the instructions received from the SHO of Parliament Street Police Station.

The order recorded: "One instruction from the SHO, Parliament Street, has been given that this particular FIR for which the petitioner has been arrested has not been quashed by the Supreme Court."

On that basis, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

Bhardwaj’s custody and Jantar Mantar case

Bhardwaj was arrested by the Delhi Police Crime Branch after being detained in Bulandshahr. He was subsequently produced before the Patiala House Court, which first granted one day of police custody and thereafter one day of judicial custody before the matter came before the concerned court. The High Court hearing took place against this backdrop.

The underlying case relates to an alleged assault on the father of a minor protester during a Jantar Mantar demonstration. Delhi Police have also invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act, while a separate POCSO case has been reported in connection with allegations arising from the broader controversy.