The Panaji police told the Bombay High Court in an affidavit that it had denied permission to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) to hold a protest because of its alleged history of violating conditions imposed by authorities. The police also cited the group's alleged support for Umar Khalid, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, as one of the reasons for rejecting the request.
The police said personnel were deployed on Sunday according to a deployment plan issued by senior officers in Goa.
In its affidavit, the police referred to an incident in July when a protester was allegedly found carrying a placard that read, "Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Bhima Koregaon 16", and a shoulder bag bearing the words "Palestine will be free".
The protester, Mohammed Zanskar Danish, a Delhi resident, was brought to the police station for questioning because the police feared the incident could lead to a law-and-order situation, the affidavit said.
The police also claimed that Danish could not give a concrete reason for supporting Umar Khalid, who is accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
His arrest was followed by more protests in Goa, during which demonstrators allegedly raised slogans such as "Har Ghar me Umar Khalid janmega". The police also referred to a separate case registered against a CJP supporter over an alleged incident involving the outraging of a woman's modesty.
PROTESTERS DIDN'T HAVE PERMISSION: COPS
The police claimed that most of the protesters who gathered on Sunday were from outside Goa. Members of the citizens' group Enough is Enough, led by retired Justice Ferdin Rebelo, retired Superintendent of Police Bosco Gergo, Cloud Alvaris, Govind Shirodkar, Swanesh Shirlekar and Valmiki Naik, also joined the CJP protesters outside Azad Maidan in Panaji.
According to the police, officers asked the protesters not to create a disturbance or block the road. They also asked the demonstrators to produce permission from the competent authority to hold a sit-in at Azad Maidan.
The protesters allegedly failed to produce the required permission, refused to comply with the police's requests and began raising slogans against the state and Central governments.
The police said they did not allow the protesters to enter Azad Maidan because they did not have valid permission to hold the demonstration.
The CJP protesters had been informed that their request, submitted on October 7, had been rejected. However, the administration continued to monitor social media and found that an Instagram account, "cjp.goa", had posted the statement, "DENYING PERMISSION IS DENYING DEMOCRACY". The posts also called on people to gather in large numbers at Azad Maidan.
SITUATION COULD HAVE ESCALATED: EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
In his affidavit, Executive Magistrate DS Toraskar said that despite the heavy deployment of police personnel, the protesters entered Azad Maidan.
He said the protesters' conduct and the situation at the venue led him to believe that the gathering could escalate into a confrontation, resulting in a breach of peace or posing a threat to the safety of police personnel, protesters and members of the public.
"At that stage, I was not aware of the individual intentions of the persons concerned. In the circumstances then prevailing, I considered it necessary to intervene to prevent any further confrontation. Accordingly, I orally instructed the Police Inspector, Panaji Police Station, to detain the said persons and ascertain their identities and the reasons for their actions," Toraskar said.
The Executive Magistrate also cited a police report on the CJP's July 25 protest, its first round of demonstrations seeking the resignation of former Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
According to the report, the CJP had allegedly violated conditions imposed for a peaceful protest. It also referred to allegedly inflammatory speeches that were said to have triggered protests by another pressure group.
The report further mentioned obstruction of vehicular traffic, verbal altercations involving members of the group and the alleged use of derogatory remarks. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against some protesters following that incident, Toraskar said.
COPS DENY MISTREATMENT OF DETAINED PROTESTERS
In their affidavits, police officers claimed that the protesters had tried to forcibly enter the Azad Maidan area. They said the seven protesters were detained and taken to Pernem police station to maintain peace and order.
The seven named in the affidavits were Afreen Shaikh, Jack Sukhija, Bupesh Bind, Aditya Parulekar, Listan Noronha, Shamino Fernandes and Milind Rane.
The police said the detainees were allowed to sit at the police station and were provided with water. They were also asked to undergo medical examinations, particularly Listan Noronha, who had sustained an injury.
However, according to the police, the detainees refused to go to the hospital. The police claimed that medical treatment was therefore provided at the station on humanitarian grounds.
The police further described the detainees as "aggressive in nature and were not co-operating". They alleged that the protesters were recording videos inside the police station and circulating them, following which officers asked them to hand over their phones.
The police said the phones were returned when they were asked to produce the detainees before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at around 5 pm.
HC QUESTIONS WHETHER DETENTION WAS AUTHORISED
The three affidavits were filed before the Bombay High Court, which heard a habeas corpus petition late on Sunday evening seeking the release of the seven protesters.
The petition alleged that the protesters had been "bodily lifted from the location and taken to the Pernem Police Station where they were detained".
Advocate Norma Alvares, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Goa government had not issued any prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) banning gatherings at Azad Maidan or any other part of the location.
Section 163 empowers Executive Magistrates to issue urgent, temporary orders to prevent potential threats to public peace and safety.
A bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar observed that there were no prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS and said the detention might not have been authorised. The court sought responses from the Panaji and Pernem police stations and the Executive Magistrate.
The bench will hear the petition again on October 19.
- Ends
(With inputs from Ritesh Desai, Goa)