The petitioners argue that their arrest on March 13, 2024, was illegal and violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. They are seeking a writ of habeas corpus, which aims to secure their release from unlawful detention.

The NIA alleges that the petitioners are affiliated with the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), with one petitioner claiming the title of "Army Chief" and the others acting as associates. The agency claims they were involved in funding the organization through extortion, recruiting members, and procuring weapons for violent acts.

The earlier writ petition, filed under similar grounds, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court after the petitioners withdrew it, seeking the liberty to approach a "Competent Court/Forum" for their grievances. This earlier dismissal, however, has been cited by the NIA as a basis for arguing that the current petition is barred under the principle of "constructive res judicata." The agency contends that since the same issues were previously raised, the petitioners cannot re-litigate them.

The NIA's legal team has asserted that the petitioners should not have been allowed to file a fresh petition after withdrawing the first one without specific permission to do so. They argue that the liberty granted by the Division Bench did not include the right to approach the same High Court again.

In contrast, the petitioners’ counsel contends that the earlier withdrawal was based on their initial unawareness of the charges against them. They emphasize that the current petition introduces new arguments concerning their arrest and remand, particularly highlighting recent Supreme Court rulings that mandate communication of arrest grounds.

After thorough deliberation, the Delhi High Court has decided that the petition is maintainable. The court clarified that the principle of personal liberty is paramount and should not be subjected to overly technical interpretations of previous court orders. It underscored that matters concerning personal freedom deserve careful and immediate judicial consideration.

The court noted that the petitioners had a right to challenge their arrest and remand under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly since they lack other statutory remedies. The bench indicated that personal liberty is a significant aspect of legal proceedings and should not be constrained by procedural technicalities.

This case not only highlights the ongoing legal struggles faced by individuals accused under terrorism-related charges but also emphasizes the delicate balance between state security and personal liberty. As the Delhi High Court prepares to hear arguments on the merits of the petition, the outcome will likely have implications for future cases involving the National Investigation Agency and the rights of the accused.

The unfolding legal drama serves as a reminder of the vital role of judicial oversight in safeguarding individual rights against the backdrop of national security concerns. The court's decision to entertain the petition reflects a commitment to uphold constitutional protections, reinforcing the principle that justice must prevail, even in complex and contentious circumstances.