“THEN YOU ARE NOT GEN Z?” DELHI HIGH COURT’S WITTY REMARK ADDS A LIGHT MOMENT TO CJP LEADERS’ CUSTODY BATTLE
October 21, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 21: A light-hearted exchange over the meaning of Generation Z briefly enlivened proceedings at the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, as Justice Subramonium Prasad questioned whether Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka qualified as Gen Z during a hearing on their challenge to an extension of judicial custody.
The exchange began when the judge asked advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the petitioners, about the ages of the two leaders. Chimni informed the court that Das was 27 and Ranka was 32.
After hearing their ages, the judge remarked, “Then you are not Gen Z.” When the court was told that Generation Z generally refers to people born after 1997, the judge reiterated his observation, prompting a lighter moment during an otherwise serious legal proceeding.
The exchange soon attracted attention on social media. CJP leader Abhijit Dipke reacted by posting an image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the caption, “The only person who qualifies as GenZ.”
Behind the humorous moment, however, the hearing concerned the legality of the continued detention of Das and Ranka. The two leaders had approached the High Court to challenge an October 19 order issued by a Special Executive Magistrate extending their judicial custody until October 21.
The leaders were detained on October 13 after allegedly climbing over a locked gate to enter Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a designated protest site. They had displayed the national flag and raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar before being taken into preventive custody.
During the hearing, Justice Prasad questioned whether the petitioners had chosen the appropriate legal route by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The court indicated that a revision petition could be the more suitable remedy for challenging the magistrate’s order.
The bench also raised questions about the alleged breach of a peace bond and whether the authorities could impose stricter surety requirements following a second alleged breach. It further noted that the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site was being challenged before the Supreme Court and had not been stayed.
The judge expressed concern that breaking barricades could encourage others to violate prohibitory orders imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), potentially complicating the maintenance of public order.
Chimni argued that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to extend the leaders’ custody and alleged that preventive proceedings were being used arbitrarily. He also questioned the handling of the sureties submitted on behalf of the petitioners.
The court suggested that the leaders await the outcome of proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate, who was scheduled to reconsider their sureties later on Wednesday. The petitioners subsequently withdrew their plea.
Justice Prasad permitted the withdrawal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the High Court did not determine whether the custody extension was legally valid.
The hearing thus combined a brief exchange over generational identity with substantial questions concerning preventive detention, protest restrictions and the appropriate legal remedies available to those challenging executive orders. While the Gen Z remark became the most immediately shareable moment, the legal dispute over the CJP leaders’ custody remained unresolved by the High Court’s proceedings.
