Leaders of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, on Wednesday withdrew their petition before the Delhi High Court challenging orders passed by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) in connection with their detention over a protest at Jantar Mantar.
The withdrawal came after the High Court questioned why the petitioners had approached it instead of pursuing the available legal remedies before the magistrate and allowing the ongoing proceedings to take their course. The bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Advocate Abhik Chimni, representing the CJP leaders, informed the court that they wished to withdraw the petition. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the authorities, sought time to raise certain issues, pointing out that the petitioners had invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and had argued their case for nearly an hour.
The bench said it had allowed the petitioners to present their arguments and suggested that they withdraw the plea and await the outcome of the proceedings before the SEM, which was scheduled to hear the matter that day.
Authorities flag alleged non-compliance before magistrate
Following the withdrawal, the ASG sought to draw the court’s attention to the petitioners’ conduct during the proceedings before the SEM. He submitted that the CJP leaders had been allowed to argue their case and file written submissions in connection with an application for judicial custody. They had also been directed to submit a reply but had failed to do so, he alleged.
The ASG urged the High Court to clarify that the withdrawal of the petition should not be interpreted as condoning the alleged failure to file a reply before the magistrate.
The bench declined to intervene in the ongoing proceedings, asking, “Let them follow the proceedings there. Why should we say anything?”
The ASG subsequently questioned the petitioners’ conduct over the submission of sureties. He alleged that the leaders had submitted sureties but later claimed during media interactions that they had not filed anything. He also referred to the repeated reconsideration of four sureties and argued that the petitioners had disregarded conditions attached to their bail bonds.
When the bench asked whether any forfeiture had taken place, the CJP side responded that the proceedings had been closed and that lawyers had been told they could not appear there.
The ASG further argued that advocates should not be allowed to stand as sureties. The court declined to rule on the issue, observing that it was for the SEM to consider.
Reiterating its position, the bench indicated that the petitioners should pursue the remedies available before the magistrate rather than seek further observations from the High Court. It made no findings on the substantive issues raised in the withdrawn petition.
Separate hearing involving Neha Bora scheduled for Thursday
In a separate development, the Delhi High Court agreed to hear a matter involving CJP leader Neha Bora at 10:30 am on Thursday after her counsel requested an early listing.
The lawyer told the court that he needed to leave to attend proceedings before the SEM. During the exchange, the judge jokingly remarked that the lawyer owed him a coffee because he had not allowed the judge to drink it that day.
The ASG maintained that the authorities wanted to bring the petitioners’ conduct to the court’s attention in response to their contention that the SEM’s orders had been passed without proper application of mind. The bench, however, said the petitioners should be allowed to present their arguments through the appropriate proceedings.
The ASG also sought time to file a reply in the separate matter involving Bora.
