In a major legal development, the Uttarakhand High Court has put a temporary stay on the arrest of Yamunotri MLA Sanjay Dobhal, his brother, and 148 supporters accused of blocking National Highway-134 in Barkot. The single bench of Justice Ashish Naithani passed the interim order while hearing petitions to quash the FIRs against them.
The protests in question were sparked by a videograph that went viral on social media, ostensibly showing police beating a young man in Barkot. In response, MLA Dobhal, Barkot municipal chairperson Vinod Dobhal, Naugaon block leader’s spouse Ajveen Panwar, Kapil Rawat, and others staged a highway blockade, severely disrupting traffic for several hours.
Our correspondent reports that the police lodged multiple FIRs on 6 September under sections relating to public order disturbance and obstruction of essential services, naming both identified and unidentified participants. The court bench noted that the petitioners must cooperate with investigations even as their arrests remain suspended pending further orders.
Under the court’s interim order, none of the petitioners will be detained until the next hearing. The order emphasises procedural fairness, stating that the law must balance enforcing order and protecting the rights of citizens to protest.
Our correspondent adds that the court’s move is widely seen as relief for the accused, many of whom say they acted in legitimate protest against alleged police excess. The decision has also stirred political debate, with opposition voices accusing the government of suppressing dissent through legal intimidation.
In its ruling, the High Court also directed the petitioners to present evidence and assist in the investigation. The court made clear that its intervention is temporary and subject to scrutiny of the FIR contents, allegations and statutes invoked.
Legal experts observed that the stay is consistent with judicial practice in cases where there is prima facie complexity or possible overreach in FIRs. They noted that this measure allows the courts to adjudicate validity of the accusations without immediate custodial consequences.
Meanwhile, political circles in Uttarakhand have reacted to the order with mixed responses. The ruling party’s supporters argue that law and order must be maintained, while critics contend that the protests were symptoms of public frustration and should be heard, not suppressed.
Observers expect the case to remain under close watch in the state, especially given its alignment with larger debates on citizen rights, protest and governance. The next court hearing—likely within days—will determine whether the FIRs will be quashed or allowed to proceed further.
