Two days. That is how much longer the Special Executive Magistrate's court sent Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to judicial custody on Monday, 19 October. Their lawyers want the Delhi High Court to hear the challenge at night, during court vacation.
The two Cockroach Janta Party members were detained on 13 October at Jantar Mantar, during a protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protest grew out of SIR (Special Intensive Revision) and the party's allegation that names were removed from voter lists on a large scale. The Election Commission has rejected those allegations and says deleted voters can re-register under the rules. Police allege the pair crossed barricades into an area that had recently been dropped from the list of designated protest sites.
The magistrate's order of 19 October went further than the detention itself. It said both men deliberately violated the conditions of a bond they executed on 11 October, and then took part in activity that disturbed the peace. It also recorded concern over repeated protest calls in prohibited or denotified areas. Custody now runs to 21 October. Are two bond-condition breaches, if proven, enough to keep two people in judicial custody while the law on protest sites is itself contested?
The defence disputes the order's factual basis. It argued that neither man called for any protest after 10 October, and that they reached Jantar Mantar separately. The order's treatment of the sureties is the other point of dispute. The magistrate said one surety's documents showed a photo mismatch and that the surety could not produce additional identification. The court said a second surety could not give a satisfactory answer to basic questions about Saurav Das. It rejected both and told the pair to produce new ones.
Ratna Singh, who is associated with the party, announced the High Court petition on X on 20 October.
We have approached the Delhi High Court and demanded an urgent hearing at night. Saurav and Ashutosh should not stay in jail for even one minute.
Her demand carries a legal claim as well as urgency. The party's lawyers argue the magistrate's order is not sound in law, and that the record holds too little material to reject sureties or extend custody.
The cost falls on the two men first. Each day in custody runs on a ruling the defence calls unsupported, and each day the registry delays listing the matter adds to that time. Lawyers are still waiting to hear when the petition will be listed. The question reaches beyond these two members. Anyone who joins a protest in a contested location now has a stake in how closely a court tests the material behind a custody order.
Meanwhile, Delhi Police handed the investigation into the 13 October Jantar Mantar incident to the Crime Branch's Interstate Cell. The inquiry moves forward while the challenge to the custody order waits for a date.
Political games should not take away their freedom. Justice should not be delayed.
Ratna Singh's words frame the case as a test of process, and the process is the point. A bench that hears the petition will have to say whether the record justified the order, and that answer will outlast the 21 October date.
Two men sit in custody, a registry has not yet answered, and the clock on the order keeps running.