Delhi High Court Seeks Police Response Over Nadeem Khan’s Alleged Confinement

New Delhi, October 12, 2026: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from Delhi Police regarding allegations by civil rights activist Mohammad Wasiq Nadeem Khan that police personnel unlawfully restricted his movement ahead of a proposed protest at Jantar Mantar.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma issued notice on Khan’s petition and directed the police to file a status report within two weeks. During the hearing, the Bench questioned the legal basis for allegedly restricting an individual’s movement merely because permission for a protest had been denied.

Representing Khan, advocate Shahrukh Alam submitted that police personnel remained at his residence-cum-office premises on September 29, from approximately 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., without producing any written order authorising the alleged confinement. The petitioner further alleged that he was subjected to surveillance and received police calls concerning his whereabouts.

According to the petition, the alleged restrictions were intended to prevent Khan from participating in a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar. Khan, associated with the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), has challenged the legality of the alleged confinement and also questioned broader restrictions on public assemblies and protests in the New Delhi district.

Delhi Police disputed the allegation of detention. Its counsel submitted that permission for the proposed protest had been denied and that police personnel had received information suggesting Khan might nevertheless proceed to the protest site. The police maintained that their personnel were present to inquire into the situation and restrict his movement, rather than formally detain him.

The Court also recorded the police counsel’s assurance that Khan would not receive further telephone calls from the police in this connection.

The proceedings raise important questions concerning the limits of police powers, personal liberty, freedom of movement and the constitutional protection of peaceful assembly. The petition remains pending, and the Court has not issued a final ruling on the legality of the alleged conduct.

Source: The Indian Express, October 12, 2026; LiveLaw, October 12, 2026.