Delhi court dismisses CJP’s plea alleging ‘wrongful confinement’ by police

Cockroach Janta Party’s legal wing Ratna Singh. File | Photo Credit: PTI A Delhi court on Saturday (October 10, 2026) dismissed a plea by the head of the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) legal wing Ratna Singh, alleging that she had been “wrongfully confined” by the police outside her residence in Jangpura amid a massive police crackdown in the national capital to thwart a youth protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over large-scale deletions of names from electoral rolls.Ms. Singh told The Hindu that Delhi Police personnel had surrounded the car in which she was sitting outside her residence with advocates Tara Narula and Shivangi Sharma earlier on Saturday (October 10, 2026). Police personnel had cited “verbal orders from above” to prevent her from leaving, she alleged.Anti-CEC protest LIVE updates: October 10, 2026Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey of the Saket District Court held that the application was not prima facie maintainable in its present form, observing that it failed to comply with the “statutory requirement” of filing an affidavit attesting to the veracity of the allegations, and to specify the exact location of the alleged confinement for determining the court’s jurisdiction.“The exact location of the vehicle has not been mentioned and the determination of the jurisdiction has been left to the presumption of this court… For the aforesaid reasons, without delving into the merits of the matter and nature of allegations, this court is of the opinion that the present application is not even prima facie maintainable in the present form and accordingly stands dismissed on the aforesaid grounds,” the order stated.The application, filed through advocates Adit Pujari and Sowjhanya Shankaran, had invoked Sections 175(3) and 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or a Non-Cognisable Report against those allegedly responsible for restraining and confining Ms. Singh, besides a status report on the circumstances surrounding her alleged confinement.The court found that the plea suffered from procedural deficiencies. Apart from the absence of the requisite affidavit, it noted that the application did not identify the police personnel against whom the allegations had been levelled.“It being amply clear, that the complaint made ‘on oath’ being the mandatory requirement of this provision, the present application u/s 98 Cr.PC/101 BNSS 2023 is also not maintainable without an affidavit and accordingly stands dismissed,” the order said.Referring to Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which requires a magistrate to consider a report from the superior officer of a public servant accused of committing an offence in the discharge of official duties before ordering an investigation, the judge noted that Ms. Singh’s application did not identify any particular police officer against whom the allegations had been made. In the absence of such identification, it was not possible to determine the “Officer Superior” from whom the requisite report could be sought, the court said.Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.She had been on her way to join lawyers protesting outside the Supreme Court when she was allegedly prevented from leaving, Ms. Singh said.“The Applicant is being wrongfully confined/restrained. The Applicant apprehends a threat to liberty, safety, bodily integrity, and a threat to life. The Applicant has continuously asked the policemen situated outside the car as to under what power such detention/restraint/confinement,” her application stated.The plea alleged that Ms. Singh had repeatedly asked the police personnel to disclose the authority under which she was being restrained, but neither an order nor any authorisation had been shown to her.“The present application is bona fide, and is in the interest of justice. Due to paucity of time, and urgency associated with the matter, the applicant is not in a position to approach higher police officers, who may in fact themselves be complicit in the illegal and wrongful acts described above,” the application stated.Ms. Singh had urged the court to direct the registration of an FIR against the “errant persons” allegedly responsible for restraining or confining her, contending that she apprehended an escalation that could endanger her “bodily integrity, health, and life”. Published - October 10, 2026 08:11 pm IST