IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)
W.P. (CRL) NO. __ OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Veetu Thokchom, R/o Manipur Petitioner
VERSUS
Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Delhi Police Headquarters, ITO, New Delhi – 110002
& Ors. Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE
PETITION IS FILED
The Petitioner challenges the illegal detention and transit
remand order granted in favor of Manipur Police for his
arrest on February 15, 2019.
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
The Petitioner, Veetu Thokchom, a student activist
from Manipur, was arrested in Delhi by Manipur
Police on February 15, 2019, for his alleged social
media posts criticizing the Citizenship (Amendment)
Bill, 2019.
The arrest was made under Section 124A (Sedition)
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Petitioner was produced before a Delhi
Magistrate, where a transit remand was granted
without following proper legal procedures.
The Petitioner’s family was not informed before the
arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The Petitioner was forcefully taken to Manipur
without proper legal representation in Delhi,
violating Section 41A CrPC and principles laid down
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
His detention is arbitrary, illegal, and
unconstitutional, necessitating judicial intervention.
3. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
A. Violation of Fundamental Rights
Arrest and transit remand violate Article 21 (Right
to Life and Liberty) of the Indian Constitution, and
the lack of proper legal representation in transit
remand violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
B. Failure to Follow Due Process
As per D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1
SCC 416, arrest procedures were not followed
(failure to inform family, lack of legal aid).Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273)
mandates reasons for arrest, which were not
properly recorded.
C. Misuse of Sedition Law
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR 955
SC held that sedition applies only when speech
incites violence. Petitioner’s social media post did
not incite [Link] use of sedition charges
violates Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5
SCC 1, which struck down vague restrictions on free
speech.
D. Illegal Transit Remand
The Delhi Magistrate failed to record reasons for
transit remand, violating Section 167 CrPC and the
principles laid in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(1978) 1 SCC 248. Petitioner was denied a chance
to challenge the remand order, violating order in
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.
E. The arresting party came in plain clothes and did
not disclose the identity.
F. Veewon’s location was not disclosed for the next 20
hours.
4. RELIEFS SOUGHT
In light of the above, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:
a) Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to
produce the Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court and release
him forthwith;
b) Declare the arrest and transit remand illegal and in violation
of constitutional and procedural safeguards;
c) Award compensation to the Petitioner for illegal detention
and mental agony;
d) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
SHALL EVER PRAY.
DELHI PETITIONER
DATE: 14 MARCH 2025 THROUGH ADVOCATE
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION UNDER
ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Veetu Thokchom, R/o Manipur Petitioner
VERSUS
Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Delhi Police Headquarters, ITO, New Delhi – 110002
& ors. Respondents
I, Veetu Thokchom, S/o Thokchom Nabakumar, aged about 30
years, R/o A-105, 4th floor, Paryavaran Complex, Saket, Delhi
110030, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the petitioner in the present suit and am fully
aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application under
Article 226 of the Indian constitution, have been drafted
under my instructions and the contents of paragraphs 1 to 6
of the said application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
[Link] this affidavit is made bona fide and in the
interest of justice.
VERIFICATION
I, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing
material has been concealed therein.
Verified at delhi on 17th March 2025.
Deponent
(VEETU THOKCHOM)
