Seven youth activists were allegedly detained without due process, tortured in custody, and later released, raising serious concerns over legality and institutional silence.
Over a span of 11 days in July, seven students and youth activists were detained by the Delhi Police Special Cell in a manner that civil liberties groups allege have amounted to enforced disappearance. The arrests, which began on July 9, have drawn criticism over alleged procedural violations, custodial torture and intimidation, including threats of sexual violence.
The detained individuals were affiliated with student-led platforms such as the Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch and the Forum Against Corporatization and Militarisation.
On July 9, Delhi Police detained Gurkirat, Gaurav, and Gauraang, members of the Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch, without issuing any formal arrest warrants or prior notifications, an action that appears to violate procedural safeguards outlined under Sections 35 and 36 of the BNSS. Two days later, activists Ehtmam-ul Haque and Baadal were also taken into custody under similar circumstances in Delhi.
Samrat Singh, a psychologist and social worker based in Yamunanagar, Haryana, was reportedly picked up from his residence without any involvement from the local police, raising concerns over the legality of cross-jurisdictional action by Delhi authorities.
While all seven activists were released by July 21, rights groups have said that the circumstances of their detention and treatment in custody merit closer scrutiny. The use of coercion, threats of sexual violence, and blatant disregard for due process remain matters of serious concern.
Legal groups and those detained allege that the arrests were made without warrants, and that standard procedures—including informing the accused and producing them before a magistrate within 24 hours—were not followed. Family members and legal representatives claim that for several days, they were unaware of the whereabouts of the detainees, effectively making the situation one of enforced disappearance under international human rights norms.
The Campaign Against State Repression (CASR) said the detentions violated Article 22 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult legal counsel. The group also said there was no adherence to the Supreme Court’s D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) guidelines, which mandate the preparation of arrest memos and timely communication with families.
A report by Maktoob Media, based on interviews with the released individuals and legal advocates, stated that several of the detained activists alleged they were subjected to custodial violence, including beatings, electric shocks, and verbal abuse.
The Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch (BSCEM) stated to DU Beat:
This level of repression with abduction, week-long illegal detention, and custodial torture including electrocution, being forced to strip naked, sexual harassment, heads being dunked into unflushed toilet bowls is not an isolated incident.”
The statement continued, “These actions reflect the broader crackdown on democratic voices under the Surajkund Scheme, which aims to criminalise and silence all forms of dissent.”
Among the most serious allegations were threats of sexual violence directed at female detainees, who were allegedly warned they would be raped with rods if they did not comply with police demands. In some cases, activists claimed they were coerced into signing declarations renouncing political involvement or agreeing not to return to Delhi.
The Campaign Against State Repression (CASR), in its statement, alleged that the treatment meted out to the detainees amounted to sexualised violence and custodial abuse in breach of both Indian legal provisions and international human rights obligations. The group urged the courts to initiate an independent judicial probe into what they described as unlawful detentions, disappearances without disclosure, custodial torture, and gender-based threats made against the activists during their confinement.
Among the seven detainees, the case of Rudra, a 20-year-old student of Philosophy (Honours) from Zakir Hussain College, Delhi University, has received particular attention. Rudra disappeared shortly after boarding a train to Delhi on July 18. His phone was switched off within hours, and no information about his location surfaced until he was released on July 21. Activist groups say Rudra’s temporary disappearance typifies an emerging tactic of off-the-record detention meant to silence political speech while evading legal scrutiny.
Twenty-nine civil society and human rights organisations issued a joint statement demanding an independent judicial inquiry into the detentions. The signatories included the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression (WSS), and student organisations such as AISA, SFI, and BSF. According to a report by Maktoob Media, the statement described the detentions as part of a broader attempt to criminalise student and youth dissent, particularly among those opposing state policy in conflict-affected regions.
The joint statement urges the need for judicial oversight, accountability for police actions, and an end to the use of preventive detention in such cases.
The All India Students’ Association (AISA), which led demonstrations in Delhi following the arrests, framed the incident as an alarming expansion of authoritarian practices under the guise of national security. In a statement to DU Beat, spokesperson Anjali said:
The rapid erosion of civil and democratic rights has only accelerated in recent times as the ‘war against Naxalism’ spreads into cities. Any and all dissenting voices are being hunted and persecuted… This pattern must end immediately and a judicial inquiry must be constituted into the abductions, enforced disappearances, custodial torture, and threats of sexual violence faced by the detained activists.”
Other campus groups have called on university administrations and the University Grants Commission to take a stand in defence of student rights and institutional autonomy.
Despite the severity of the allegations, the case has received minimal coverage in major national dailies and television media. Only a handful of independent outlets have documented the timeline of events, first-hand accounts from the activists, and statements from rights organisations. This limited media scrutiny, observers argue, reflects a broader pattern of silence when allegations involve state agencies.
Lawyers representing the activists have announced plans to seek legal redress, including filing compensation claims and writ petitions questioning the legality of the arrests. These legal proceedings, if admitted, could require the Delhi Police to account for their conduct during the 11-day detention period and explain the apparent procedural lapses.
Simultaneously, rights organisations are exploring formal complaints to the National Human Rights Commission and relevant State Human Rights Commissions.
According to Maktoob Media,
“Legal support networks are also preparing to escalate the matter internationally, citing the custodial torture and enforced disappearances as violations of India’s obligations under international human rights law.”
The detention and alleged torture of Delhi-based youth activists has raised serious questions about the state’s adherence to democratic norms and constitutional protections. While all seven individuals have been released, rights groups argue that the manner of their detention and treatment warrants urgent institutional scrutiny.
Failure to address these concerns, they warn, could deepen distrust in law enforcement and weaken public confidence in democratic institutions. With civil society seeking accountability, the onus is now on the judiciary and human rights commissions to ensure due process is upheld.
Also Read: DU Student Activist Missing Amidst Alleged Police Detention, Speculations Spark Concern
Image Credits – Himanshu for DU Beat
Eram Asrar
