Delhi HC questions CJP leaders' Gen Z tag in Jantar Mantar custody case
Synopsis
A Delhi High Court bench sparked an unusual courtroom moment by questioning whether two CJP activists aged 27 and 32 could be called Gen Z — but behind the wry aside lies a sharper legal dispute: whether preventive custody was lawfully extended after their sureties were rejected following a protest at Jantar Mantar against alleged electoral roll irregularities.
Key Takeaways
Delhi High Court questioned on 21 October 2026 whether CJP leaders Saurav Das (27) and Ashutosh Ranka (32) qualify as Gen Z.
The hearing concerned their plea challenging extended judicial custody in the Jantar Mantar trespassing case.
SEM Ritu Raj had previously extended custody, noting the duo's 'habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas'.
The two were among 14 people detained on 13 October 2026 after allegedly entering Jantar Mantar through private premises.
The activists were protesting alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and had raised slogans against CEC Gyanesh Kumar .
The petition was ultimately withdrawn ; the Delhi HC disposed of it without ruling on the merits, leaving all contentions open.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 21 October 2026, questioned whether Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) leaders Saurav Das (aged 27) and Ashutosh Ranka (aged 32) could be described as Gen Z, while hearing their plea challenging the extension of their judicial custody in the Jantar Mantar trespassing case. A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation during arguments over the rejection of their sureties by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM).
The Gen Z Remark in Court
Advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the two activists, submitted their ages before the bench while seeking release on personal bonds. Upon hearing the figures, Justice Prasad remarked, 'Then you are not Gen Z. What is Gen Z?' When Chimni clarified that Gen Z broadly covers those born after 1997, the court reiterated that neither petitioner fell within that category.
The bench also reflected on how the character of protests at Jantar Mantar had shifted over time. 'Earlier, it was a student protest; children were there, but now it's another cause. These people remain the same, but the cause is changed,' Justice Prasad observed orally.
Key Legal Questions Raised
The court questioned whether the SEM's rejection of sureties could be characterised as illegal, and whether the petitioners were correct in invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when a statutory revision petition remained available. Justice Prasad drew a distinction between the maintainability of a petition and whether it ought to be entertained at that stage, and indicated that the petitioners should first await the SEM court's proceedings scheduled for 2 pm.
The bench also raised broader questions about the associations of those organising such demonstrations and their stated purpose, observing that these aspects could become material when authorities assessed the likelihood of a breach of peace and public tranquillity. 'When there is apprehension of breach of peace and tranquillity, all these questions will assume importance. What is your association? What is the purpose of the association?' the court remarked.
Background: The Jantar Mantar Detentions
Das and Ranka, along with CJP member Ajinkya Shinde, were among 14 people detained on 13 October 2026 after allegedly entering Jantar Mantar through private premises and obstructing police personnel. The CJP members were protesting against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and had raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
On Monday, SEM Ritu Raj had extended their custody, recording that their conduct 'shows no respect for law' and reflected their 'habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas.' The SEM court also noted that the two activists had allegedly breached bonds previously furnished before the SEM, South-West District, on 11 October, before committing the alleged breach in the present case.
Plea Withdrawn; All Options Open
After the matter was passed over so counsel could take instructions, Chimni informed the court that the petitioners wished to withdraw the plea. The Delhi High Court permitted the withdrawal and disposed of the petition without ruling on the merits, leaving all contentions open for future proceedings. The development came on the very day the two activists' judicial custody was due to expire, with both scheduled for production before the SEM court during the day.
The court also noted that a challenge to the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue remains pending before the Supreme Court, and that no stay on the denotification has been granted. How the SEM court responds to the activists' fresh arguments later in the day is likely to determine their immediate legal status.
Point of View
But the substantive issue is more consequential: whether a Special Executive Magistrate can extend preventive custody by rejecting sureties without a sufficiently detailed breach-of-peace finding. The activists' decision to withdraw rather than press the writ suggests a tactical retreat — possibly to avoid an adverse ruling on maintainability that could narrow future legal options. Notably, the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue remains unchallenged by a stay from the Supreme Court, meaning detentions there carry a continuing legal cover that authorities are clearly prepared to use. The broader pattern — protest, detention, surety rejection, custody extension — is becoming a procedural template that civil liberties lawyers argue is being used to suppress dissent without formal criminal charges.
NationPress
21 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why were CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka in judicial custody?
Das and Ranka were detained on 13 October 2026 after allegedly entering Jantar Mantar through private premises and obstructing police personnel. They were protesting alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and raising slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
What did the Delhi High Court say about the Gen Z remark?
Justice Subramonium Prasad made an oral observation questioning whether the petitioners — aged 27 and 32 — could be classified as Gen Z, a term generally applied to those born after 1997. The remark was made during arguments over their custody extension and was not a formal finding of the court.
Why did the petitioners withdraw the plea?
After Justice Prasad indicated the petitioners should first await the SEM court's 2 pm proceedings and questioned the use of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a revision petition was available, the petitioners chose to withdraw. The High Court disposed of the petition without ruling on its merits, leaving all legal options open.
What is the current legal status of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue?
Jantar Mantar has been denotified as a designated demonstration venue. A legal challenge to that denotification is pending before the Supreme Court, but no stay has been granted, meaning the denotification remains in effect.
What did the SEM court say when extending their custody?
SEM Ritu Raj extended custody on Monday, recording that the activists' conduct 'shows no respect for law' and reflected their 'habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas.' The court also noted that they had allegedly breached bonds furnished before the SEM, South-West District, on 11 October.
