Seven individuals detained for proposed protest at Azad Maidan, Panaji, released following Court's intervention; directions issued for medical examination and police affidavits
In a significant ruling delivered by the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) on October 11, 2026, seven persons detained at Azad Maidan, Panaji, in connection with a proposed protest have been ordered to be released forthwith. The detainees were taken into custody by the police despite the absence of any prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which regulates public assemblies and gatherings.
The habeas corpus petition was filed by Adv Malisa Zemira Simoes and another, seeking immediate production and release of the detainees from the custody of the Pernem Police Station. The petitioners contended that the police did not provide any reasons for the detention, and crucially, there were no prohibitory orders issued by the State Government under Section 163 of BNSS that prohibited gatherings at Azad Maidan on the day of detention.
The police, represented by the Panaji and Pernem Police Inspectors, justified the detention by stating that the Collector of North Goa had rejected the application for permission to hold a public gathering at Azad Maidan on October 11, 2026. However, the Court emphasized that the mere rejection of permission to hold a public gathering does not equate to the existence of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of BNSS. In the absence of such orders, the Court found prima facie that the detention might not have been legally authorized.
The Court noted that the Executive Magistrate present at the site had orally instructed the police to detain the individuals because they had entered Azad Maidan despite the denial of permission. However, the Court refrained from going into the correctness of this instruction and the legality of the detention at this stage.
On the condition that the detainees would not engage in any protest activities at Azad Maidan that night, Senior Advocate Ms. Norma Alvares, representing the detainees, gave an undertaking on their behalf. Based on this assurance, the Court directed the immediate release of all seven detainees.
Further, the Court directed that if the detainees volunteered, they should be produced before the Casualty Medical Officer at Goa Medical College for a medical examination to be conducted the same night. The medical report or hurt certificates, if any, were to be submitted before the Court in a sealed cover the following day.
The police officers also informed the Court that the phones initially confiscated from the detainees had been returned, addressing concerns raised about personal liberties and property.
The Court scheduled the matter for the next day, October 12, 2026, at 12 noon, directing the Police Inspectors of Panaji and Pernem Police Stations and the Executive Magistrate to file affidavits explaining the detention and actions taken. The medical officer's report was also to be placed on record.
This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards in cases of detention related to public assemblies and highlights that mere rejection of permission does not authorize detention without valid prohibitory orders under the BNSS.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus - Detention of persons at Azad Maidan for proposed protest despite absence of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of BNSS - High Court held that detention may not have been authorised and directed immediate release of detainees on undertaking that they would not protest that night - Court also directed medical examination and filing of affidavits by police officers and Executive Magistrate.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India; Section 163, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
