The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (October 21, 2026) questioned Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka over allegedly breaking a barricade to enter Jantar Mantar, observing that authorities could insist on stricter proof when a person is accused of breaching peace for a second time.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made the oral observations while hearing the CJP leaders’ plea challenging the extension of their judicial custody by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM).

“The challenge to the denotification [of Jantar Mantar] is pending in the Supreme Court. Now, when you go there and you break a barricade...the chances of 10 or 20 more people in violation of Section 163 BNSS is very bright. Again, I’m not saying good, bad, indifferent,” the Judge remarked.

Section 163 of BNSS, empowers authorities to issue directions to prevent potential disturbances.

The Judge also observed that police permission for protests was not merely intended to restrict demonstrators but also to prevent unwanted elements from joining a gathering and spoiling its reputation.

“The police permission is just not to stop you. The police permission is also to prevent persons who are unwanted elements to join your group and spoil your name,” the court said. “We are seeing that happening outside our country. What started as a student’s protest has now gone into arson, looting, burning,” the court said.

The court noted it was dealing with petitioners who have given a bond and have broken the bond and asked whether authorities were not entitled to insist on stricter proof in such circumstances.

The Judge also questioned why the petitioners had approached the High Court when the order could be challenged before the appropriate appellate or revisional forum.

The court’s observations came during the hearing of the CJP leaders’ challenge to the SEM’s October 19 order extending their judicial custody by two days.

Mr. Das and Mr. Ranka were taken into custody on October 13 after they allegedly climbed over a locked gate to enter Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a designated protest site. They were initially remanded to five days of judicial custody.

During the hearing, the Judge also asked the petitioners’ counsel about their ages. After being told that they were 27 and 31, the judge questioned whether they could be classified as Generation Z

“...Because in the first protest in July-August, students were there. But now, its another cause. People remain the same, cause is changing. Next question will be who are you, what are you? What is your association? What is the purport of your association,” the court remarked.

The Judge explained that, “when there is a question of breach of peace, all these questions will assume importance. As to what is your motive”.

The CJP leaders subsequently withdrew their petition after the court advised them to await the outcome of the hearing scheduled before the SEM later in the day and approach the appropriate appellate court if their grievance persisted.

While permitting the withdrawal, Justice Prasad clarified that he had not made any observations on the merits of the matter.