New Delhi, November 29, 2025 — The legal proceedings involving protesters arrested at India Gate over recent demonstrations took a complex turn on Friday, with courts granting bail in one case while sending the same group to judicial custody in another. The developments highlight the ongoing scrutiny by law enforcement and the judiciary in cases arising from public protests and clashes with police personnel.

Earlier in the week, authorities arrested a total of 23 protesters in connection with two separate incidents recorded at the Parliament Street and Kartavya Path police stations. Seventeen individuals were detained for a scuffle at the Parliament Street police station, while six others were arrested in relation to an alleged pepper-spray attack on police personnel during protests at India Gate.

On November 27, a court had ordered that four of the arrested protesters be placed in police custody, while the remaining 13 were sent to judicial custody. However, on Friday, Judicial Magistrate Sahil Monga granted bail to nine of these 13 individuals, citing that further detention was unnecessary for the ongoing investigation. “The concerns regarding absconding or tampering with evidence can be addressed by imposing reasonable conditions. Further custodial detention is not necessary, as the investigating officer has not sought police custody and the investigation does not appear to require their incarceration,” the magistrate noted.

Despite this, legal complications persisted because several of the protesters were also named in a separate case registered at the Kartavya Path police station. Of the 17 individuals named in the Parliament Street FIR, 15 were again taken into custody in relation to the Kartavya Path case. Seven of these were arrested on November 25, while the remaining eight were detained on Friday.

In court proceedings later on Friday, Judicial Magistrate Aridaman Singh Cheema reviewed the arguments regarding the latest arrests. He affirmed the legality of the detentions and ordered that all eight recently arrested individuals be sent to seven days’ judicial custody. At the same time, six other accused in the same case remained in police custody, bringing the total number of detained protesters in the Kartavya Path matter to 21.

Defense counsel Sowjhanya Shankaran, representing four of the arrested protesters, raised concerns about procedural lapses. She argued that the grounds for arrest had not been clearly communicated, and the protesters’ families were not informed. “Grounds of arrest were not given, their families were not informed…. They have to be released if they are not produced before a magistrate in 24 hours,” the lawyer stated. Shankaran further criticized the authorities for rushing the arrests in anticipation of bail.

In response, police representatives contended that the 24-hour production requirement did not apply as the accused were already in judicial custody. They also maintained that the grounds of arrest had been provided and that family members had been duly informed.

During earlier hearings, Delhi Police had submitted that some of the protesters involved in the India Gate demonstration were supporters of the banned Radical Students’ Union. New Delhi Deputy Commissioner of Police Devesh Kumar Mahla told the court that several of the arrested students had publicly expressed support for the banned organisation on social media and were involved in singing its affiliated songs during the protests.

The India Gate protests had drawn attention due to the alleged use of pepper spray against police personnel amid demonstrations over environmental concerns and pollution in the capital. The dual proceedings now reflect the judiciary’s attempt to balance investigative requirements with the rights of the accused.

By granting bail in one case and ordering judicial custody in another, the courts demonstrated a nuanced approach to handling protests that involve multiple legal issues and FIRs. Judicial authorities emphasized that while individuals are entitled to legal protections, law enforcement is also empowered to pursue cases where there is evidence of criminal conduct or violations of public order.

The situation underscores the broader tension in urban centers between public demonstrations and law enforcement measures, particularly when protests escalate into confrontations with authorities. Legal observers note that the Indian judicial system often faces complex challenges in managing such scenarios, especially when multiple FIRs arise from overlapping incidents and involve the same set of protesters.

As of Friday, the legal status of the 23 protesters remains split across the two cases: nine have secured bail in the Parliament Street matter, while 21—including some of those granted bail—remain in judicial custody in the Kartavya Path case. Further hearings are expected in the coming days, and the police investigation continues into both incidents.

The India Gate arrests and the associated court proceedings highlight the judiciary’s critical role in reviewing the legality of arrests, ensuring procedural compliance, and upholding the balance between citizens’ rights to protest and the need to maintain law and order in sensitive areas of the national capital.