The Delhi High Court has scheduled a hearing on Sunday for a series of habeas corpus petitions that allege illegal detention of ten activists by the Special Cell of Delhi Police. Key Developments Advocate Shahrukh Alam informed a division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that the petitions will be heard on 15 March 2026. One petition, filed by Sagrika Rajora , seeks immediate production of her sister Lakshita Rajora , a 22‑year‑old who went missing on the evening of 13 March from the Vijay Nagar area near Delhi University. The petition alleges that Lakshita and several other individuals who were at a student‑organisation office that night have not been found, and that she may have been picked up by the Special Cell. Sagrika claims that eight months earlier Lakshita and her associates were detained for over a week by the same agency, subjected to custodial torture, and released without formal arrest or appearance before a magistrate. Important Facts The missing activist was last seen around 8 PM on 13 March; her mobile phone was switched off shortly thereafter. The petition highlights a pattern of alleged unlawful arrests by the Special Cell, raising concerns about procedural safeguards and the right to personal liberty. UPSC Relevance These developments touch upon several core areas of the UPSC syllabus: Constitutional safeguards : The writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right under Article 32, reflecting the judiciary’s role in protecting personal liberty. Polity and administration of justice : The functioning of a division bench and the authority of the Chief Justice illustrate the hierarchical structure of the Indian judicial system. Law‑enforcement accountability : The alleged actions of the Special Cell raise questions about police powers, oversight mechanisms, and the balance between security and civil liberties. Human rights and custodial practices : Claims of custodial torture without judicial oversight relate to international human‑rights norms and India’s obligations under the Constitution and statutes such as the Protection of Human Rights Act. Way Forward For aspirants, it is essential to monitor the court’s orders on the production of the missing activists and any directives issued to the police. The case may prompt a review of: Procedural safeguards for arrests and detention, including the need for prompt judicial scrutiny. Strengthening oversight of specialized police units to prevent misuse of power. Legislative or policy reforms aimed at curbing custodial torture and ensuring compliance with constitutional guarantees. Understanding these dynamics helps in answering GS‑2 questions on the judiciary, law‑enforcement agencies, and fundamental rights.