New Delhi: A Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) on Monday extended the judicial custody of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka by two more days. The initial five-day judicial custody was also ordered by an SEM on 14 October.
The two CJP leaders were detained by the Delhi Police on 13 October after they “sneaked into” Jantar Mantar and shouted slogans while raising the tricolour. Their protest came three days after Jantar Mantar was denotified as a protest site.
They were remanded in five-day judicial custody on 14 October by Mahesh Kumar Meena, the Special Executive Magistrate for New Delhi district. Their custody was extended by two more days on 19 October by another SEM, Ritu Raj of the New Delhi District at Mandir Marg Police Station.
The CJP leaders’ detention and judicial custody have been covered widely by national media, bringing into focus the role and functions of SEMs, and how different they are from a judicial magistrate.
On Tuesday, the CJP moved the Delhi High Court against their continued detention.
I met Saurav and Ashu before leaving, and they are stronger than we think.
This is how the State tries to crush young people, but it should know that it will not break their spirit.
Keeping them in jail for unfurling the national flag? If this isn’t an undeclared Emergency,…
— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 19, 2026
Also read: Crush the CJP, spare Rahul Gandhi? Modi govt’s two faces on protest
The difference between JM and SEM
The establishment of courts of judicial magistrate is governed by Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The state government, in consultation with the high court, notifies the number and locations of judicial magistrate courts (first and second class) in each district.
The HC appoints the presiding officers for these courts and can confer magistrate powers onto members of the state judicial service serving as civil court judges.
SEMs on the other hand are officers appointed temporarily by the state government under Section 15 BNSS for specific areas, periods, or public functions. The corresponding section under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was section 21.
Section 15 of the BNSS explains how the state government may appoint, for such term as it may think fit, executive magistrates or any police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or equivalent, to be known as Special Executive Magistrates.
Depending on state-specific notifications, these officers can also be Deputy Collectors or Tahsildars or senior police officers such as those of SP or ACP rank.
Their performance is more on the administrative and preventive functions rather than judicial trials, even though their orders do remain subject to review and oversight by higher judicial courts.
Their core function is preventive governance as they hold authority to take pre-emptive measures to stop anticipated breaches of the peace, public disorder, or unlawful assemblies.
They also hold the power to require individuals to execute bonds for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as mentioned under Section 126 of the BNSS.
Importantly, they hold the power to issue temporary restrictive orders to manage crowds and public events. An instance of this is the issuance of an order imposing Section 163 BNSS which lets a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any Executive Magistrate stop public gatherings and maintain order during emergencies.
Historically, state governments have appointed SEMs for issuing prohibitory orders for better governance and crowd control management in local events and urgent special law enforcement.
What SEMs cannot do
As per criminal procedural law, SEMs cannot preside over criminal trials and pass punitive sentences under law, as their role is simply administrative and preventive.
They cannot file First Information Reports (FIRs) or direct police investigations into private complaints as well.
They work strictly till when the state government order allows them to and their jurisdiction is also defined by the government. All their actions can be reviewed by a District Magistrate or any state authority, apart from courts.
Breaching of peace bonds
In the 19 October order, SEM Ritu Raj stated Ranka and Das “deliberately breached their Bonds dated 11.10.2026 as submitted before the Ld. SEM, South-West District, and immediately committed the breach of peace in this case”.
The 11 October “bonds” SEM Ritu Raj referred to were signed by Das and Ranka—promising to maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one year—before the South-West District SEM before they were released from an earlier detention.
They were detained on 10 October from inside their flight when they were going to launch an agitation at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
SEM Raj added that the conduct of the respondents is “not above board; rather it shows no respect for law and their habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas”.
“The Statement of respondents before this Court, during the arguments, that they will not repeat this offence in future does not inspire confidence based on conduct and material placed on record by the IO, in the form of application seeking further detention.”
The SEM also questioned the suitability of fresh sureties furnished on behalf of Das and Ranka, citing an “apparent mismatch” between the photograph on one surety’s bond and that on their Aadhaar card.
Moreover, inquiries conducted revealed that both the sureties have no control over the respondents to produce them before the court, “which is the primary essence of keeping Surety. No other Surety present at present. In such a situation, respondents are directed to furnish fresh Sureties”.
This is under Section 126 of the BNS, which gives an Executive Magistrate the power to require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace when there is a risk of public disturbance or a breach of peace.
This order was also issued under Section 170 of the BNSS which deals with preventive arrest to stop the commission of a cognisable offence.
Lastly, there is one important distinction to be made. The duo have a Kalandra against them; not an FIR. While an FIR is a formal police complaint registered for a punishable criminal offense, a Kalandra is a preventive police report sent to an Executive Magistrate to stop a potential breach of peace or public disturbance rather than investigate a past crime.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)