Swatantra Bhardwaj Delhi High Court Arrest: Habeas Corpus Plea Filed

• Right-wing influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj has filed a Habeas Corpus plea with the Delhi High Court.
• The plea seeks to declare his September 5 arrest by Delhi Police as illegal, arguing he should be released from custody.
• Bhardwaj was arrested in Uttar Pradesh on September 5 for allegedly assaulting the father of a Dalit student-activist during a July protest at Jantar Mantar organized by the Cockroach Janta Party.
• He faces charges under the SC/ST Act, POCSO Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with the High Court agreeing to an urgent hearing.

The urgent consideration of Bhardwaj's Habeas Corpus Delhi High Court petition underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the legality of arrests and detentions.

Right-wing personality Swatantra Bhardwaj has initiated legal proceedings before the Delhi High Court, seeking to invalidate his recent apprehension by the Delhi Police. Bhardwaj's legal team has lodged a Habeas Corpus Delhi High Court petition, contending that his detention is unlawful and demanding his immediate release. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, acknowledged the urgency of the matter and consented to hear the plea without delay. Advocate Umesh Sharma presented the case, informing the court that Bhardwaj has been held in custody for three days following his arrest. The core of the Swatantra Bhardwaj illegal arrest plea rests on the assertion that the police procedures leading to his detention were not compliant with legal requirements.

The Swatantra Bhardwaj Delhi High Court arrest stems from an incident in July at Jantar Mantar, where he is accused of assaulting the father of a Dalit student-activist during protests organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Bhardwaj was taken into custody on September 5 from Uttar Pradesh. Initially, the charges against him were limited to Sections 115(2) (causing simple hurt) and 126(2) (wrongful restraint) of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita arrest challenge.

However, the legal landscape shifted significantly after Bhardwaj himself made public statements on social media. He claimed to have fractured the skull of the girl's father and asserted that his initial detention by the police lasted only a few hours. Furthermore, he publicly associated himself with prominent NDA political figures, Kapil Mishra and Chirag Paswan. Paswan swiftly refuted these claims, denying any affiliation with Bhardwaj and subsequently filed his own complaint against Bhardwaj for unauthorized use of his name. Following protests at the Parliament Street police station by leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party, accompanied by the student-activist and her father, additional and more serious charges were brought against Bhardwaj. He is now also facing accusations under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, commonly known as the Jantar Mantar assault SC/ST Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, leading to POCSO Act Bhardwaj charges.

The urgent consideration of Bhardwaj's Habeas Corpus Delhi High Court petition underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the legality of arrests and detentions. A writ of Habeas Corpus is a fundamental legal remedy used to bring a person before a court to determine if their detention is lawful. Bhardwaj's challenge specifically targets the procedural validity of his arrest, particularly given the evolution of the charges from relatively minor offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to more severe allegations under the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act.

The court's decision to hear the Swatantra Bhardwaj illegal arrest plea on an expedited basis highlights the importance of ensuring due process, especially when individuals are held in custody. The outcome of this case could provide crucial clarification on the interpretation and application of arrest procedures under these specific statutes, offering insights into the safeguards available against alleged illegal detention. It also brings into focus the implications of public statements made by an accused, and how such statements, coupled with public pressure, can influence the scope and nature of charges brought by law enforcement.

Criminal defense lawyers and those advising on human rights or civil liberties should monitor this case for insights into the Delhi High Court's interpretation of arrest procedures and the application of Habeas Corpus, especially concerning charges under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act. The outcome could clarify procedural safeguards against alleged illegal detention and the scope of challenging arrests under these specific statutes.

Source: Original reporting via legal news