Protect the constitutional and legal rights of Nadeem Khan

To,

The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi – 110001

Sub: Intimidation and attempt to illegally detain human rights defender Nadeem Khan – Seeking fairness in process, inquiry and protection of constitutional and legal rights of Nadeem Khan.

Sir,

We the undersigned are members of National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights (NAJAR – NAPM), a pan-India democratic forum of legal professionals across India, including lawyers, law students, law researchers, and law educators who are committed to the values of the Constitution of India, and the preservation of the rule of law.

We are writing this letter to express our grave concern over the blatant disregard of these principles and the procedural violations apparent in the manner of attempted raid at the offices of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) on the night of 29.11.2024 without due process, attempted detention of Nadeem Khan on 30.11.2024 without due process, and trespass at the residence of, and intimidation to, his family members.

The basis of police action against Nadeem Khan is an exhibition by APCR which took place at Hyderabad in mid-November. Weeks later, the Delhi police has registered an FIR on 30.11.2024 at 12:48 pm, purportedly following a video posted on social media with misleading and unsubstantiated claims. This video has been posted on X by an account which, from a simple online search it will be known, has been known to spread misinformation on previous occasions. It is not clear what is the alleged illegality that the Delhi police was made cognizant of, weeks after the exhibition, coinciding with the time of misleading posts on social media platforms urging police action.

What is also shocking is that the Delhi police reached Bangalore by 5 pm the same day, at the residence of Nadeem Khan’s brother, a swiftness that has rarely been seen in recent times following the registration of FIRs. Considering the time of registration of the FIR, it also seems to have been filed after the SHO had already left for Bangalore. In a blatant violation of procedural requirements, the SHO of Shaheen Bagh Police directly reached the residence of Mr. Khan’s brother, without the mandatory requirement of a Section 35 (3) BNSS notice, which was only issued as an afterthought and not prior to reaching the residence.

The present FIR has invoked offences under Sections 61, 196, 353(2) of the BNS, all of which prescribe a punishment of less than 7 years of imprisonment. As per the provision governing arrests and Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), in such cases an individual cannot be arrested by the police merely on the ground that such person had committed the alleged offence. Before attempting such arrest, the police officer has to be satisfied that (i) such arrest is necessary to prevent the person from committing any further offence; or (ii) for proper investigation of the case; or (iii) to prevent the accused from tampering with the evidence; or (iv) to prevent such person from influencing witnesses; or (v) that the accused is a flight risk. Where any of these concerns are present, the law mandates the police officer to record the reasons in writing for proceeding with the arrest. It is clear from the manner of the attempted detention by Delhi police and the registration of FIR, that these guidelines have been violated.

A day prior to this, on the night of 29.11.2024, several police officers reached the Delhi office of APCR around 9 pm, outside of office hours, which was only informed to Nadeem Khan later by his neighbours. On the morning of 30^th November, the police reached the office again to inquire about its office bearers, and did not provide information to the lawyers present at the office when asked about the reason for such inquiry.

Nadeem Khan is a well-known human rights activist, and the work done by his organisation APCR has been critical for legal advocacy, research and documentation, as well as in providing accessible legal aid in India, in particular for socio-economically vulnerable minorities. APCR has been a petitioner in several cases before the High Courts as well as Supreme Court, in litigations seeking the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights of individuals and marginalized communities. APCR has been at the forefront of legal literacy initiatives, an effort that should have been welcome in any democratic-minded society.

Instead of that, the exhibition has come to form the alleged basis of police action and a subsequent FIR. The exhibition, as is clear from the video, was meant for educating the public about their legal rights; it highlighted Supreme Court guidelines in Tehseen Poonawala case of 2018, which has become a landmark decision governing the role of the police in instances of mob violence; it made a graphic flowchart of the procedure for filing of FIRs and RTIs; it also exhibited instances of well-documented instances of hate speech, including those by individuals holding public offices. The exhibition sought to do this in a creative way, which was mischievously taken out of context, distorted, and given a criminal character by an X account user. The Delhi police, without trying to verify any details of this exhibition from the publicly available phone numbers, acted on the same and hastily proceeded without fulfilling the necessary procedural requirements.

Given the grave concerns regarding his safety, and the continued harassment and intimidation of Nadeem Khan, his family and APCR, we demand due cognizance of the aforementioned procedural violations and seek an inquiry into the conduct of officers of the concerned departments.

We also demand an immediate withdrawal of the FIR that has been filed on the basis of misleading claims and urge that no further arbitrary action be taken, including filing of questionable cases, detention or arrest, in violation of his constitutional rights. APCR must be allowed to do its significant work of upholding civil rights and supporting those whose legal and human rights are being violated.

Yours sincerely,

1. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court
2. Bhargav Oza, Law Student and Labour Rights Researcher-Practitioner, Ahmedabad.
3. Meera Sanghamitra, Law Graduate, Social Activist, Telangana
4. Maanasee Hatkar, Law Student, Haryana
5. M. H. Naik, Advocate, Jammu and Kashmir
6. Radhika, Law Researcher, Bangalore
7. Rusham, Law Student, Delhi
8. Ameya Bokil, Law Researcher, Bangalore
9. Kawalpreet Kaur, Lawyer, Delhi
10. Vertika Mani, Lawyer, Delhi
11. Nisha Biswas, Social Activist, Kolkata
12. Taniya Laskar, Lawyer, Assam
13. Pyoli, Advocate, Delhi
14. Dr. Shalu Nigam, Advocate and Researcher, Delhi NCR
15. Rathod Arun Kumar, Law Student, Punjab
16. Rishav Sharma, Advocate, Delhi
17. Muskan Tibrewala, Advocate, Delhi
18. Pratik, Lawyer, Delhi-NCR
19. Ashish, Advocate, Hyderabad
20. Bijaya Chanda, Advocate, Kolkata
21. Iswarya, Advocate, Chennai
22. Arundhati Dhuru, NAPM, Lucknow
23. Indira Unninayar, Advocate, Delhi High Court, Supreme Court
24. Kavin Castro, Advocate, Chennai
25. Hamza, Legal Researcher, Delhi
26. Shubham Kaushal, Lawyer and Researcher, Ahmedabad
27. Khalil ur Rehaman, Student of Law, Dharwad, Karnataka
28. Priyasha, Law Student, Hyderabad,
29. Isha Khandelwal, Advocate
30. Maansi V, Lawyer, Delhi
31. Albert Jasper GP, Student of Law, Hubli, Karnataka
32. Deeptangshu Kar, Advocate, Kolkata
33. Joicy, Advocate, Delhi
34. Lekshmi, Advocate, Delhi
35. Sushravya, Advocate, Bangalore
36. Carina, Social Activist / Lawyer
37. Purbayan Chakraborty, Advocate, Calcutta High Court
38. Shalini Gera, Advocate, Bilaspur High Court
39. Naveen Gautam
40. Swastika Chowdhury, Advocate
41. Krithika Dinesh, Delhi
42. Anish Lukose, Advocate, Kottayam
43. Hasi Jain, Law Student, Haryana
44. Shaikh Faiyaz Alam, Final Year Law Student, Mumbai
45. Madhur Bharatiya, Researcher, Bangalore
46. Geet Dahariya, Lawyer, Delhi
47. Harsh Kinger, Lawyer, Vadodara
48. Rohin Bhatt, Advocate, Supreme Court
49. Priyanka Singh, Advocate, Lucknow
50. Yasmeen Praveen, Law Student, Mumbai
51. Vanshika, Lawyer, Delhi
52. Shashwati Diksha, Lawyer, Pune

Issued by NAJAR: National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights

Write to [email protected]