The detention of protesters in Delhi demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has brought two questions into focus: when can police detain someone before an offence is committed, and when can a court require them to sign a bond promising to keep the peace?
Images of protesters being put into buses and taken to police stations, alongside allegations that people were detained at home or while travelling, have raised concerns about the use of preventive powers to restrict peaceful assembly.
Among those detained were Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das, Abhijeet Dipke and Ashutosh Ranka. They were taken from an aircraft after it landed in Delhi on Saturday and released by a Special Executive Magistrate on Sunday.
Delhi Police said the arrests were made under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A Rs 50,000 peace bond was furnished, with the promise of maintaining peace and good behaviour for one year.
The detentions also reached the Supreme Court, which held a special sitting on Sunday. Lawyers alleged that people had been detained despite being far from areas covered by prohibitory orders. The bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed that there could be no illegal detention of people protesting peacefully outside prohibited areas.
The legal issue turns on the distinction between preventive arrest, removal for disobeying police directions and proceedings to require a peace bond. Each involves a separate power and separate safeguards.
WHAT POWERS ALLOW POLICE TO ACT BEFORE AN OFFENCE?
Section 170 of the BNSS allows a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant or a Magistrate’s order to prevent a cognizable offence.
The officer must know of a plan to commit such an offence and consider that it cannot otherwise be prevented. The provision therefore requires a basis for anticipating an offence and for concluding that arrest is necessary.
A person arrested under this provision cannot be held for more than 24 hours unless further detention is required or authorised under another legal provision. This is not an unconditional requirement to release everyone within 24 hours, but continued custody needs a separate legal basis.
Advocate Oindrila Sen, speaking to India Today, said preventive powers can be exercised even before an overt act has occurred. However, there must be material supporting a genuine apprehension of an offence or disturbance. Such measures are intended to prevent harm, rather than punish a person, she said.
WHAT IS A PEACE BOND?
Section 126 of the BNSS deals with proceedings before an Executive Magistrate to require a person to keep the peace. It corresponds to Section 107 of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Magistrate must receive information that a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit a wrongful act that could cause such a disturbance. If satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed, the Magistrate can ask the person to explain why they should not be required to execute a bond.
The bond can cover a period of up to one year. Proceedings can be initiated where the anticipated disturbance falls within the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, or where the person concerned is within that jurisdiction even if the disturbance is anticipated elsewhere. Section 126 governs peace-bond proceedings; it does not itself provide the police arrest power contained in Section 170.
Supreme Court advocate Anas Tanvir told India Today that these proceedings commonly arise from a police report known as a *kalandara*. He described them as preventive proceedings, rather than a criminal prosecution.
CAN A MAGISTRATE AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRE A BOND?
The law prescribes a process for deciding whether security is necessary.
Under Section 130, the Magistrate must issue a written order setting out the substance of the information received, the bond amount, its duration and the number of sureties required. The person concerned must have an opportunity to respond.
Section 135 requires an inquiry into the truth of the information. Once that inquiry begins, the Magistrate can require an interim bond if immediate preventive measures are necessary, but must record reasons in writing.
Under Section 136, a final order requiring security follows an inquiry establishing that it is necessary. The amount must reflect the circumstances and cannot be excessive. If the need for security is not established, Section 137 requires the person to be discharged and, if held solely for the inquiry, released.
Sen said the Magistrate must independently assess the information and record the basis for proceeding. In her view, a mechanical or pre-printed notice issued without that assessment would undermine the proceedings.
WHEN CAN POLICE REMOVE A PROTESTER?
Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act requires people to comply with reasonable directions issued by police officers while carrying out their duties under the Act.
If someone resists, refuses or fails to comply, police may remove that person. The person must be produced before a Metropolitan Magistrate or released within 24 hours. In trivial cases, release can follow once the circumstances requiring removal have ended.
The provision concerns non-compliance with a reasonable police direction. It does not independently authorise a peace bond under Section 126 of the BNSS.
Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta told India Today that action for disobeying police directions requires a lawful direction in the first place. He questioned the basis for detaining people at home or while travelling when no such non-compliance had been established.
That objection concerns the grounds for using a particular power. Preventive proceedings do not always require a completed offence, but the authorities must establish the conditions required by the provision they invoke.
WHAT ROLE DO PROHIBITORY ORDERS PLAY?
Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the CrPC, allows specified Executive Magistrates to issue urgent orders to prevent danger, disturbances of public tranquillity, riots or similar situations. Such orders can restrict activities or gatherings in specified circumstances.
A prohibitory order and the power to arrest or remove someone are separate legal questions. The existence of restrictions does not, by itself, settle whether every detention connected with a protest is lawful.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra told India Today that prohibitory orders cannot be used as a permanent mechanism to curtail constitutional freedoms.
Restrictions must be linked to the time, purpose and circumstances for which the law permits them, he said.
DOES A PEACE BOND PREVENT SOMEONE FROM PROTESTING?
Article 19 of the Constitution protects citizens’ right to assemble peacefully and without arms. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and India’s sovereignty and integrity.
Luthra said requiring someone to keep the peace cannot mean preventing them from participating in peaceful activities protected by Article 19.
A condition against breaching the peace therefore cannot automatically be read as a blanket ban on protest. The wording of the order, its legal basis and the conduct alleged against the person matter.
HOW CAN THE ACTION BE CHALLENGED?
Luthra said a person facing peace-bond proceedings can contest the information before the Executive Magistrate and explain why the action lacks sufficient grounds.
Depending on the order and the stage of proceedings, they can also seek revision before the Sessions Court or High Court, or approach the High Court to have the proceedings quashed.
The Delhi controversy centres on whether the grounds and safeguards required by law were met in each case.
Authorities have powers to prevent offences and disturbances, but a planned protest, a preventive arrest and a peace bond raise distinct legal questions.
The legality of the action depends on the provision invoked, the material supporting it and the procedure followed.
- Ends