Ashutosh Ranka, Saurav Das, Neha Bora Detention: Who are the Special Executive Judges, why are they in the news after SIR | Today’s news

The detention of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, along with a show cause notice issued to All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neh Bora, has brought the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) under scrutiny amid protests against the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of the Electoral Roll (SIR).

Das and Ranka challenged the extension of their remand by the Special Executive Judge in the Delhi High Court. However, they withdrew their motion on Wednesday after Justice Subramonium Prasad suggested that they wait for a re-examination of their warrants by the SEM court.

Meanwhile, Bora has challenged the notice issued by another SEM, asking her to show cause why she should not be required to be remanded in peace custody for fear of breach of peace.

The development has renewed questions about the scope of SEM’s preventive powers.

According to The Indian Express, courts have repeatedly expressed concern about procedural errors in preventive proceedings and their impact on personal liberty.

Who are Special Executive Judges?

Special Executive Magistrates are officers who have special judicial powers under the law, primarily to prevent breaches of the peace and maintain public order.

In Delhi, the Delhi Police Act empowers the Central Government to empower the Commissioner of Police and subordinate officers of at least the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (AKT) to exercise executive magisterial powers.

According to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, executive magistrates can initiate preventive proceedings, require individuals to show cause why they should not provide bonds to maintain peace, and take other measures permitted by law to prevent anticipated disturbances.

However, their decisions can have serious consequences for personal liberty, particularly when individuals are required to provide bond or are placed in pretrial detention. Their powers must therefore be exercised in accordance with the law and valid procedural guarantees.

How do SEMs differ from court magistrates?

The primary difference lies in their institutional status and the nature of their powers.

Special Executive Judges: They function within the executive branch and exercise powers vested in them by law to prevent breaches of the peace and maintain public order. In Delhi, designated police officers can exercise these powers under the Delhi Police Act.

Court Judges: They operate within the judicial system under the supervision of the High Courts. They exercise judicial powers under the criminal law of procedure and may conduct criminal proceedings and judicial proceedings within their jurisdiction.

Executive judges traditionally include financial and administrative officers. However, in Delhi, police officers of the required rank may also be authorized to exercise executive magisterial powers.

Why are SEM in the news after the SIR protests?

The current inspection follows protests against the Election Commission’s SIR electoral rolls and demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s accountability.

CJP activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were detained on October 13 after they allegedly entered the barricaded Jantar Mantar protest site by climbing over its gates. They were subsequently sent to detention for five days.

On October 19, SEM Ritu Raj, a Delhi police officer in ACP, extended their remand for two more days after rejecting the bails granted to them.

The warrant said their behavior did not inspire confidence, raised concerns about law enforcement and indicated a risk of further breaches of the peace. She also referred to what she described as repeated calls for protests at an undisclosed location.

Das and Ranka challenged the order, arguing that the magistrate had wrongly rejected their bails and had no power to extend their remand on the grounds stated.

On 21 October, the Delhi High Court asked why they approached him before taking the alternative remedy of revision. Justice Prasad also questioned whether the insistence on the guarantees was illegal, given allegations that the activists had violated an earlier peace bond.

The activists subsequently withdrew their motion after the court suggested that they wait for the outcome of the proceedings before the SEM.

The case drew attention to the extent to which pre-emptive powers can be used when demonstrations lead to public order charges.

What is the case of Neh Bor?

Neha Bora, president of AISA, separately challenged the notification issued by SEM Mahesh Kumar Meena.

The notice asked her to show cause why she should not be held in custody, citing the possibility of a breach of the peace.

According to The Indian Express, Bora was detained on October 16 on her way to a planned march at Connaught Place. After completing the required formalities, she was released in the morning hours of October 17.

A notice issued subsequently alleged that she shouted slogans during the protest at Mandi House and was involved in repeated protest-related activities despite the bans. She also claimed to have encouraged participation in an unauthorized demonstration in Central Park, Connaught Place.

Bora challenged the notice, arguing that it relied on vague and factually incorrect materials and did not adequately explain why a breach of the peace was expected.

Read also | Why did Saurav Das, CJP’s Ranka withdraw Delhi HC plea against custody?

The Delhi High Court was scheduled to hear her plea on October 22, according to the report.

Why have the courts challenged the powers of the SEM?

Concerns about SEM predate the current protests. Courts have previously examined whether preventive powers were exercised in accordance with legal procedures and whether individuals were detained without sufficient justification.

In 1984, the Delhi High Court examined concerns over the use of preventive arrest provisions in a case involving Tihar Jail inmate Sunil Batra, The Indian Express reported.

The court raised questions about the consequences of allowing police officers exercising the executive powers of the courts to control the freedom of citizens without sufficient procedural guarantees.

More than three decades later, the Delhi High Court bench revisited the issue in 2018, as reported by The Indian Express. It noted that little had changed in the use of preventive powers and issued guidance on the procedures to be followed by the SEM.