BREAKING: Delhi Court Dismisses Ratna Singh's Plea Seeking FIR Against Police Over Alleged Detention Ahead of CJP Protest

The Saket District Court in Delhi on Saturday dismissed the application filed by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) legal affairs head Ratna Singh seeking registration of an FIR against police personnel for allegedly wrongfully confining her and preventing her from joining the proposed CJP protest at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, for which Delhi Police had denied permission.

The application was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey.

During the hearing, Advocate Adit S Pujari, appearing for Singh through video conferencing, submitted that she had been detained for around eight hours.

Pujari also raised the issue of taking the vakalatnama on record later during the day, explaining that Singh had been inside a car at the time of filing her application around noon and was available only through video conferencing.

During the hearing, the Magistrate repeatedly asked the lawyers representing Singh and other protesters to refrain from making further submissions after they had already advanced their arguments on the application.

The Magistrate emphasised that the court's task was limited to deciding the application before it and that the lawyers could not continue arguing beyond the submissions already made.

“You have no business telling what order should be passed and what order should not been passed,” the Magistrate remarked during the exchange, adding that merely being permitted to sit in court did not entitle counsel to keep making submissions.

At another point in the evening, when the lawyers sought to draw attention to the changed circumstances, the Magistrate clarified that he was concerned only with the arguments advanced in the application before him.

“I am not concerned about the situation which has changed. I am concerned about the arguments which have been made in the application before me. It is my limited job to decide that application. That's it,” the Magistrate said.

When Pujari suggested that there appeared to be some disappointment with the lawyers’ conduct, the Magistrate reiterated that counsel should allow the court to pass its order once the submissions had concluded and court would not consider any other factor in its decision.

“Once you have made your submissions, you need not argue any further. Let the court pass the order which is already under dictation. I will decide that application. That's it,” the Magistrate said.

CJP's Jantar Mantar Protest, Ratna Singh's Allegations

On October 10 morning, Singh was proceeding towards Jantar Mantar along with fellow CJP members to participate in a protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. However, the area was under prohibitory restrictions imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers executive magistrates to issue urgent orders to prevent potential threats to public order and prohibit unlawful assemblies.

As per media reports, Singh's plea alleges that, after returning to the area outside her residence, she was sitting in a car when she was prevented from moving. It claims that two cars blocked the vehicle from the front and rear, while police personnel stood outside its doors.

Singh also alleged that the police personnel did not disclose the legal basis for restricting her movement. She, therefore, sought registration of an FIR against those involved.

The application came amid heightened security in Delhi ahead of the CJP’s proposed protest at Jantar Mantar demanding CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

No permission to protest at Jantar Mantar

The Delhi Police had denied permission for the proposed October 10 protest, stating that CJP's communication, submitted on October 7, came too late under the existing guidelines, which require applications for demonstrations at Jantar Mantar to be submitted at least 10 days in advance. The police also cited alleged non-compliance with conditions imposed during an earlier demonstration, when a protest permitted for one day continued for around a month, leading to law and order concerns, according to the police.

The proposed demonstration also prompted extensive security arrangements across the capital, with the police citing concerns over overcrowding, traffic management and public safety.