Labour and Student Activists ‘Kidnapped’ by Delhi Police Allege Custodial Torture, Rights Violations—High Court Seeks Police Response

Key Points

Allegations of illegal detention and custodial torture have emerged in the national capital after ten student and labour activists claimed they were abducted, detained without due process, and subjected to severe abuse by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The claims, made by detainees and rights groups, are now under scrutiny before the Delhi High Court.

According to statements by the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR) and other rights organisations, the incidents began on 12 March 2026, when labour rights activist Shiv Kumar and student activist Ilakkiya were allegedly picked up near Dyal Singh College by plain clothes officers. Witness accounts cited in petitions before the court stated that the activists were taken into a vehicle without being informed of any legal grounds or shown warrants. Their phones were reportedly switched off soon after, and their whereabouts remained unknown for hours.

Over the next two days, several more activists, including students associated with campus organisations and labour groups, were similarly picked up from different parts of the city. Rights groups have alleged that the detentions were carried out without adherence to legal procedures, including failure to present detainees before a magistrate or inform their families.

Links to 2025 Vallika Varshri Case and Other Illegal Detentions

The case has drawn attention to broader concerns regarding custodial practices and the treatment of activists. Rights groups have linked the incident to previous cases involving similar allegations against the Special Cell, including a 2025 case in which activists were reportedly detained and subjected to abuse.

Vallika Varshri was a student activist who reportedly had severe ideological disagreements with her mother Archana Verma, an IAS officer at the Joint Secretary level. Varshi was an editor of Nazariya magazine, which produced Marxist–Leninist and Maoist content. In a 2025 letter, Varshri alleged that she was being targeted by her mother, following which she “went underground”, according to Maktoob Media.

Verma then filed a missing persons complaint, naming a number of activists who were allegedly detained and tortured for days. Upon release they were instructed to remain outside Delhi.

See Also: International Scrutiny Grows as US Lawmakers Write to India Over Umar Khalid’s Five-Year Detention Under UAPA Without Trial

Abducted Activists, Rights Groups Detail Torture by Delhi Police

The detainees have since made detailed allegations of custodial violence. Shiv Kumar, a labour rights activist associated with Mazdoor Adhikar Sangathan, alleged that he was blindfolded, beaten, and forced to record a false statement at gunpoint. He claimed that he was stripped, assaulted, and subjected to physical abuse, including being suspended upside down and beaten with a baton. Kumar also alleged that officers repeatedly questioned him about Vallika Varshri and accused him of links he denied.

Other detainees have described similar experiences. Rudra Vikram, a student activist associated with Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch (BSCEM), alleged that he was stripped, beaten, and subjected to sexual assault during interrogation. He said he was forced into degrading acts and threatened with further violence if he did not cooperate. According to his account, he was also coerced into implicating other activists and was beaten when he failed to provide information about Varshri, whom he claimed not to know.

CASR and other organisations have alleged that several detainees were subjected to sexual violence, humiliation, and coercion. In one case, Manjeet Kumar, a worker associated with Mazdoor Adhikar Sangathan, was allegedly stripped, beaten, and subjected to caste-based abuse after officers identified him as Dalit. He was also reportedly forced into degrading acts and assaulted while in custody.

Other activists, including Gaurav, Kiran, Akshay, and Avinash, have also alleged physical assault and coercion. Some claimed they were forced to record statements, while others alleged threats of violence if they sought legal recourse. Rights groups have further claimed that individuals attempting to assist detainees, including those seeking to file habeas corpus petitions, were also targeted and threatened.

CASR has described the incidents as a “systematic pattern of abuse” involving illegal detention, torture, sexual violence, and intimidation. Ilakkiya, Kiran and Akshay had earlier been arrested in November 2025, while protesting against severe air pollution in Delhi at India Gate. They were released after a month-long detention.

The organisation has called for an independent judicial inquiry and action against officials found responsible, stating that such actions violate constitutional protections and international human rights obligations.

The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) has also raised concerns, alleging that the activists were “disappeared” for a period and held incommunicado without access to legal counsel or family members. It further claimed that some detainees were forced to sign statements indicating that they had voluntarily joined the investigation, which lawyers argue may have been used to shield authorities from allegations of illegal detention and violations of due process.

See Also: ‘Free Tibet’ Protest in Delhi: Tibetan Students Demonstrate Outside Chinese Embassy on 67th Tibetan National Uprising Day, Police Detain Activists

High Court Hears Pleas on Illegal Detentions; Delhi Police Responds

The matter has reached the Delhi High Court through multiple habeas corpus petitions filed by families of the detained activists. During hearings on 15 March 2026, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja questioned the police on the circumstances and legal basis of the detentions. The court directed the authorities to file an affidavit explaining the actions taken and the authority under which the activists were held.

The Delhi Police has not issued a detailed public response to the allegations. In court proceedings, however, police counsel stated that the activists had been detained in connection with a case and had subsequently been released. The police stated that the detainees could not be provided with a copy of the alleged FIR based on which they were detained, citing sensitive information.

The court also addressed discrepancies regarding the release of detainees. While the police stated that all individuals had been released, petitioners argued that at least one activist, Rudra, remained untraceable at the time of the hearing. The court directed the police to locate him and clarify his status. He was reportedly released later the same day.

In subsequent proceedings, the High Court directed the Delhi Police to preserve CCTV footage from the Special Cell premises and other locations where the detentions occured. The court emphasised the need to follow due process and indicated that the material may be required for further examination.

However, the court declined to constitute a medical board to examine injuries allegedly sustained by detainees in custody, even as counsel for the petitioners pointed to visible injury marks.

The petitions before the High Court also raise questions about procedural safeguards, including the requirement to inform detainees of charges, produce them before a magistrate, and allow access to legal counsel. Lawyers representing the petitioners have argued that these safeguards were not followed in the present case.

The High Court is scheduled to hear the matter again on 27 March 2026. As the proceedings continue, the case is likely to remain a focal point in discussions on civil liberties, police accountability, and the limits of state power in handling dissent and activism.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: