The Delhi High Court on Tuesday disposed of a habeas corpus petition alleging the illegal detention of Aam Aadmi Party MLA Kuldeep Kumar after the Delhi Police informed the bench that he had been released earlier that day. A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted during the hearing that Kumar had been released at approximately 3:48 PM on August 18 and held that the objective of the present petition had been fulfilled by his release.
The matter was listed before the court earlier in the day following a mention by Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, who appeared for the petitioner. Farasat submitted that Kumar had been taken into custody by personnel in plain clothes around 4:00 AM while he was asleep at his residence. He stated that approximately 20 to 25 individuals, claiming to be Delhi Police officials, had arrived at Kumar’s residence, prevented him from accessing his phone, and took him to an undisclosed location without showing any warrant, identity badge, or documentation authorising their actions.
Farasat further argued that Kumar had been leading a protest since the previous day demanding compensation for the family of a deceased sanitation worker in his constituency. He contended that Kumar had been urging the Delhi Chief Minister, Rekha Gupta, to meet the protesters and address their grievances. Farasat questioned whether such activism could justify what he described as a draconian preventive detention, especially given the absence of any legal process or communication regarding Kumar’s whereabouts during the intervening hours.
In response, counsel for the respondents placed on record copies of the General Diary from the Madhu Vihar police station, which confirmed that Kuldeep Kumar had been released at 3:48 PM on August 18. The document was presented to the court as evidence of his release and formed the basis for the bench’s observation that the immediate concern raised in the habeas corpus petition—namely, the alleged illegal detention and lack of information about Kumar’s status—had been resolved.
While closing the plea, the court clarified that the disposal of the habeas corpus petition did not preclude Kumar from pursuing other legal remedies. The bench specifically stated that he would remain entitled to avail appropriate legal recourse for any other reliefs he might seek, including claims related to the alleged illegality of the detention, damage to property, or violation of fundamental rights.
Following the court’s observation, Farasat informed the bench that Kumar intended to take appropriate legal steps to seek compensation for the alleged illegal detention and for any damage caused to his property during the incident. He indicated that further proceedings would be initiated in accordance with the law to address these concerns.
The petition, filed by Advocate Rishikesh Kumar on behalf of Deepa, wife of Kuldeep Kumar, had alleged that at around 4:00 AM on Tuesday, 20 to 25 persons in plain clothes, claiming to be Delhi Police officials, raided the MLA’s residence in East Delhi. It stated that none of the individuals were in uniform, wore name plates or badges, or produced any warrant, order, or record to establish their identity or the authority under which they acted. The petition further alleged that Kumar was forcibly taken to an unknown location, and that before departing, the individuals allegedly destroyed the CCTV cameras at the residence and removed the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) from the system.
The plea contended that the sole reason for Kumar’s detention was his active support for the sanitation workers’ protest demanding compensation for the family of a deceased worker, and his efforts to persuade the Chief Minister to engage with the protesters. It stated that since the morning of the incident, family members had made enquiries with the Delhi Police, but no information regarding Kumar’s detention, the grounds for it, or his whereabouts had been provided.
The case was titled Deepa wife of Kuldeep Kumar v/s State of NCT of Delhi. After noting the police’s confirmation of release and hearing the submissions, the division bench closed the habeas corpus petition, emphasizing that while the immediate issue of unlawful detention had been addressed by Kumar’s release, any consequential claims remained open for legal determination.