The Delhi High Court on Monday questioned Delhi Police over the basis on which officers entered the residence of Nadeem Khan, who serves as National Secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights and founded the organisation United Against Hate.

A petition before the court contended that Khan had been held at his home address on 29 September without any detention or confinement order being produced to justify the restraint. Reports indicate that Khan had been expected to attend a public event protesting attacks on religious sites and the removal of voters through the Special Intensive Revision process for electoral rolls.

Lawyers representing the police put forward the position that Khan had faced no formal detention, with officers present solely for the purpose of making enquiries. Photographs placed before the court by Khan's lawyer Shahrukh Alam formed the basis of her challenge to that submission, with the images pointing to his detention on 29 September and the continued presence of police personnel at his residence and adjoining office until 5:30 pm that afternoon. Alam further noted that monitoring of Khan had persisted without interruption from that date onward.

In invoking the Supreme Court's directive of 11 October, Alam pointed to provisions barring unlawful detention — above all in gatherings where unarmed citizens assemble peacefully beyond zones where BNSS Section 163 applies — and affirming that lawyers, journalists, and other professionals are to carry out their work without interference.

Lawyers representing the police further contended that Khan had plans to take part in an assembly on 29 September, an event for which the relevant authorisation had not been granted. According to the police's statement, officers at the station had received information indicating he intended to move forward. Restrictions were placed on his movements.

The two-judge panel — comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma — questioned counsel representing the police over whether a formal written response or status report had been placed on record. Counsel for the police indicated that no such document had been filed. The bench pressed the respondent, noting that the petition had been delivered to them in advance and asking why no reply had yet been submitted.

The bench raised the question of whether entry into Khan's residence could be justified, and queried how the stated duties were being carried out in the manner described. The court also raised the question of the legal basis on which detention was being sought. The bench noted that while withholding permission for a gathering falls within lawful authority, the legal basis for physically restricting protesters remained to be demonstrated, and directed the police to submit a status report within a fortnight.

Lawyers representing Khan additionally petitioned the court to order Shaheen Bagh police to halt what they described as a pattern of daily contact with him, reportedly occurring two to three times each day. The court issued an order barring Shaheen Bagh police station from making telephone contact with Khan.

The bench observed that Khan faced no current travel restrictions, adding that counsel had argued no breach of the Supreme Court's order had taken place. The court indicated that a formal notice is to be served on the respondent.

Nadeem Khan has directed efforts toward reducing intercommunal tensions within India. The Association for Protection of Civil Rights, the body he leads, has produced documentation on matters such as the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Amendment Act as they have unfolded in Assam. United Against Hate operates as a community-driven organisation whose work spans gathering evidence, recording incidents, and offering legal support to those affected by religiously or ethnically motivated violence, mob attacks, and vigilante actions targeting cattle traders and owners.