Introduction:

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, orally observed that it would not permit illegal detentions by the police while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that Mumbai Police detained protesters and even innocent passers-by during demonstrations held against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) on October 10 and 11. The Court made it clear that it would address the allegations, while simultaneously emphasising that specific instances of alleged unlawful detention must be placed on record before it could examine the matter further.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna was hearing a PIL filed by Sagar Kantilal Devre. The petition raises concerns regarding the alleged detention of a large number of people in connection with the anti-CEC protests in Mumbai. According to the petitioner, approximately 600 people were detained on October 10, followed by another 300 on October 11. The petition alleges that the persons detained included not only individuals participating in the protests but also people who were merely passing through the affected areas. It further claims that women, a mother accompanied by her child, and a senior citizen were among those allegedly taken into custody.

The proceedings bring into focus an important constitutional question concerning the limits of police powers during public demonstrations. While the police are entrusted with maintaining public order, preventing violence and ensuring that protests do not disrupt public life unlawfully, these responsibilities do not authorise arbitrary interference with the personal liberty of citizens. Any detention must be supported by law and justified by the circumstances in which the power is exercised.

The petition also alleges that certain individuals were picked up from their residences because their names appeared in First Information Reports (FIRs) connected with protests held in July 2026, even though those FIRs had subsequently been quashed by the Supreme Court. This allegation raises a separate concern about whether police action continued to affect individuals despite the judicial termination of the proceedings underlying the alleged action.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Tripathi orally stated, “We will take care of the issue but obviously we will not permit this [illegal detention].” At the same time, the Bench cautioned that it could not arrive at a conclusion that every detention was unlawful merely on the basis of general allegations. The petitioner was therefore asked to provide specific examples of the alleged illegal detentions and place the relevant material before the Court.

The State’s counsel sought an adjournment on the ground that he had only just received a copy of the petition. Taking note of the request, the High Court adjourned the matter to Monday, thereby allowing the State an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The PIL seeks several forms of relief, including the preservation of CCTV footage and police records, preparation of a verified list of persons detained, and an independent inquiry into the alleged unlawful detentions and use of force. At the present stage, however, the allegations remain to be examined by the Court. The oral observations made during the hearing indicate the seriousness with which the Bench views the issue of personal liberty, while also underlining the need for concrete evidence before judicial findings can be made.

Arguments of the Parties:

Petitioner’s Allegations and Submissions

The petitioner, Sagar Kantilal Devre, has approached the Bombay High Court through a Public Interest Litigation alleging that the police resorted to widespread and unlawful detention during the anti-CEC protests conducted in Mumbai on October 10 and 11. The central concern raised in the petition is that police action allegedly extended beyond individuals suspected of committing an offence or engaging in unlawful activities and affected persons who may have had no connection with the demonstrations.

According to the figures cited in the PIL, approximately 600 individuals were detained on October 10 and another 300 on October 11. These figures, if established through supporting material, would require the Court to examine the nature, duration and legal basis of the detentions, as well as whether the police followed the applicable statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The petitioner’s case appears to rest on the distinction between legitimate preventive policing and indiscriminate detention. During a public demonstration, the police may have to regulate crowds, prevent violence, manage traffic and take lawful action against persons who breach applicable restrictions. However, the petitioner alleges that the police action went beyond these legitimate purposes and resulted in the detention of individuals merely because they were present in the vicinity of the protests.

The alleged inclusion of passers-by is particularly significant in this context. Presence at or near a protest site does not, by itself, establish participation in an unlawful assembly or involvement in a criminal offence. Similarly, a person travelling through a particular locality cannot automatically be treated as a protester merely because the area is associated with a demonstration. The circumstances of each detention, including the conduct attributed to the person concerned and the legal provision relied upon by the police, would therefore be relevant to determining whether the action was justified.

The PIL further claims that women, a mother accompanied by her child and a senior citizen were among those detained. These allegations highlight the potential consequences of indiscriminate police action for individuals who may be particularly vulnerable to the disruption and distress caused by detention. The legal issue, however, is not simply whether a detained person belongs to a particular category. It is whether the police had a lawful basis for restricting that person’s liberty and whether the required procedural safeguards were observed.

The petition also raises allegations concerning individuals who were allegedly picked up from their homes because their names had appeared in FIRs relating to protests in July 2026. According to the petitioner, the Supreme Court had subsequently quashed those FIRs. The petitioner appears to question the continuation of police action against such individuals despite the judicial orders concerning the underlying criminal cases.

This aspect of the PIL raises questions about the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s orders and whether the police had any independent, subsisting legal basis for taking the alleged action. The consequences of quashing an FIR depend on the terms and scope of the judicial order, the proceedings concerned and the existence, if any, of separate lawful grounds for action. Nevertheless, if a person was detained solely on the basis of proceedings that had been quashed, without any independent legal justification, the circumstances would warrant judicial scrutiny.

To enable the Court to examine these allegations effectively, the petitioner has sought the preservation of CCTV footage and police records relating to the incidents. Such material could be important in establishing when and where individuals were detained, which police personnel were involved, how long the detention lasted and whether the affected individuals were taken to police stations or other locations.

The request for preservation of records is also relevant because evidence relating to temporary detention may otherwise become difficult to obtain as time passes. CCTV footage may be subject to routine deletion, while contemporaneous police records could help establish the sequence of events. Preserving the relevant material would enable the Court to assess the allegations on the basis of evidence rather than relying exclusively on competing oral accounts.

The petitioner has also sought a verified list of persons detained during the protests. Such a list could assist in identifying the individuals affected, establishing the circumstances in which they were detained and determining whether the reported numbers correspond with official records. It could also help distinguish between persons formally arrested, persons detained preventively and individuals who were allegedly taken away for questioning or other purposes.

In addition, the PIL seeks an independent inquiry into the alleged detentions and use of force. The request reflects the petitioner’s contention that the allegations concern not merely isolated incidents but potentially wider police practices during the protests. An inquiry, if considered necessary by the Court, could help establish the facts, identify any violations and determine whether accountability measures are warranted.

However, the reported hearing does not indicate that the petitioner had already established each of these allegations through individual records or supporting evidence. This distinction became central to the Bench’s response. The Court asked the petitioner to bring specific instances on record, signalling that the allegations would need to be substantiated before any definitive conclusion could be reached.

State’s Position and Request for Adjournment

The State, represented by its government counsel, sought an adjournment during the hearing. The counsel informed the Bench that he had only just received a copy of the petition and therefore required additional time to examine its contents and prepare a response.

The reported proceedings do not record a detailed rebuttal by the State to the allegations concerning the number of people detained, the alleged detention of passers-by and vulnerable individuals, or the claim that some persons were picked up in connection with FIRs that had been quashed by the Supreme Court. Nor does the available case summary record a comprehensive explanation from the police regarding the legal grounds on which the alleged detentions were carried out.

It would therefore be premature to attribute to the State any specific defence beyond the request for additional time. The adjournment request was procedural in nature and did not, by itself, establish either the legality or illegality of the police action.

Nevertheless, the State will have an opportunity to place its position before the Court when the matter is taken up next. Its response may be relevant to understanding the operational circumstances surrounding the protests, the measures adopted to maintain public order, the legal provisions invoked by the police and the records available concerning the persons allegedly detained.

The State may also be required to clarify whether the individuals mentioned in the petition were formally arrested, preventively detained, taken for questioning or subjected to some other form of police restraint. These categories are legally distinct and may attract different statutory requirements and procedural safeguards.

Similarly, the allegation concerning the quashed FIRs may require clarification regarding the precise Supreme Court orders, the individuals affected and the grounds on which any subsequent police action was taken. The existence of a previous FIR, the quashing of that FIR and the legality of any later detention must be examined in light of the actual records and applicable law.

The Court’s insistence on specific instances will also enable the State to respond to identifiable allegations rather than a general assertion that a large number of people were detained unlawfully. This approach may assist the Bench in determining whether the matter concerns isolated incidents, a broader pattern of police conduct or different circumstances requiring separate legal treatment.

By adjourning the matter to Monday, the High Court has allowed the proceedings to continue after the State has had a reasonable opportunity to examine the petition. The adjournment does not amount to an acceptance of the State’s position or a rejection of the petitioner’s allegations. The substantive issues remain open for consideration.

Court’s Judgment:

Oral Assurance Against Illegal Detention

The Bombay High Court’s principal observation during the hearing was that it would not permit illegal detentions. Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi stated, “We will take care of the issue but obviously we will not permit this [illegal detention].”

The statement reflects the Court’s recognition that allegations of unlawful detention raise serious concerns involving personal liberty and the exercise of police powers. Although the police have statutory responsibilities to maintain public order, those responsibilities must be exercised within the limits imposed by the Constitution and the applicable law.

The Bench’s observation should, however, be understood in its proper procedural context. The Court was hearing the PIL at an initial stage and had not, on the facts reported, completed an examination of the evidence or delivered a final judgment holding that the alleged detentions were illegal. The oral statement conveyed the Court’s position on the governing principle, not a final determination of the disputed facts.

This distinction is important in public interest proceedings involving allegations against public authorities. Courts must remain vigilant where personal liberty may have been infringed, but they must also determine whether the alleged violations occurred on the basis of reliable evidence. An oral observation during a hearing does not automatically establish the truth of every factual allegation contained in a petition.

The Bench accordingly combined its assurance that unlawful detention would not be permitted with a direction to the petitioner to provide specific instances. The approach suggests that the Court intends to examine the allegations through an evidentiary process rather than reach a sweeping conclusion based solely on the number of persons allegedly detained.

Requirement to Place Specific Instances on Record

The Bench expressly cautioned the petitioner against expecting the Court to conclude, without supporting details, that no detention had been lawful. Chief Justice Tripathi stated, “Bring everything on record… We cannot straight away say no detention at all… But each and every example needs to be brought on record.”

This observation is central to understanding the Court’s approach. The petitioner has alleged that hundreds of individuals were detained during the two days of protests. However, the legal validity of each detention may depend on different facts, including the person’s conduct, the circumstances in which the police intervened, the legal authority relied upon and the safeguards followed.

A person who was allegedly detained merely because they were walking through the area would present a different factual situation from an individual against whom the police claim to have had reasonable grounds for a lawful arrest or preventive action. Likewise, the circumstances of a person detained at home in connection with an earlier FIR may differ from those of a person apprehended at the protest site.

The Court’s insistence on specific examples indicates that the allegations must be capable of being tested against identifiable events and records. Details concerning the identity of the affected person, the date and place of detention, the police station involved, the duration of restraint, the stated reason for the action and the subsequent treatment of the individual could assist in establishing what occurred.

Where available, supporting material such as detention records, arrest memoranda, communications with family members, medical records, witness statements and CCTV footage may help establish the relevant facts. The precise material required would depend on the nature of each allegation and the issues the Court ultimately considers necessary to decide.

The Bench did not suggest that the petitioner must prove every allegation conclusively before the Court can consider the PIL. Rather, its observation emphasised the need to place sufficient particulars on record so that the Court can identify the alleged violations and determine what further directions, if any, may be justified.

The distinction also protects the fairness of judicial proceedings. A finding that an entire category of detentions was illegal without examining the relevant circumstances could overlook differences between individual cases. Conversely, a failure to examine credible allegations of arbitrary detention could leave serious violations of personal liberty unaddressed. Requiring specific examples enables the Court to investigate the claims with greater precision.

Constitutional Protection of Personal Liberty

The allegations in the PIL engage Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This protection applies to all persons and is not confined to citizens alone.

Article 21 requires that restrictions on personal liberty have a lawful basis and comply with the applicable legal safeguards. Police action cannot be justified merely by invoking the general need to maintain public order. The circumstances must support the exercise of the particular power used, and the procedure prescribed by law must be followed.

Article 22 also provides safeguards in relation to arrest and detention. Depending on the nature of the action, these include requirements concerning communication of the grounds of arrest, access to legal representation and production before a magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed period. Preventive detention is governed by a separate constitutional and statutory framework. The applicability of particular safeguards therefore depends on whether the person was arrested, preventively detained or subjected to another form of restraint.

The allegations concerning passers-by are especially relevant to the principle that police powers must be exercised on a legally sustainable basis. A person’s mere presence in a public area cannot automatically establish criminal involvement. The police must be able to identify the lawful basis for any arrest or detention and demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements.

At the same time, constitutional protection does not prevent the police from taking lawful action against individuals where the statutory conditions are satisfied. Public demonstrations may require crowd management, traffic regulation and preventive measures to address genuine risks. The constitutional question is whether the particular action taken was authorised by law, proportionate to the circumstances and consistent with the applicable safeguards.

The reported oral observations do not establish that the Bench has conclusively applied these principles to the facts of each alleged detention. Rather, they place the dispute within the broader legal framework governing personal liberty and police accountability.

Relevance of the Allegation Concerning Quashed FIRs

Another significant aspect of the PIL concerns the alleged detention of people from their homes because their names appeared in FIRs relating to July 2026 protests, despite the Supreme Court having quashed those FIRs.

If established, this allegation would require careful examination of the scope of the Supreme Court’s orders and the legal basis for any subsequent police action. Quashing an FIR may remove the legal foundation for proceedings arising from that FIR, depending on the terms and effect of the order. Authorities cannot simply disregard a binding judicial order.

However, the legal consequences cannot be determined solely from the gneral statement that an FIR was quashed. The Court would