Question an MLA, Face Police at Midnight? The Santosh Pandit Arrest Raises Disturbing Questions

There are moments when the legality of an individual allegation becomes almost secondary to a much larger question: how is the coercive power of the state being exercised, and against whom? The arrest of Pune-based activist and social-media influencer Santosh Pandit is rapidly becoming one such case.

Pandit has built his public profile around confronting authorities, politicians and civic bodies on everyday issues ranging from broken roads and public infrastructure to VIP culture. Earlier this week, he confronted BJP MLA Gopichand Padalkar in Pune over a vehicle being used by the legislator which Pandit alleged did not carry the mandatory High-Security Registration Plate. During the exchange, Pandit also raised the question of seat-belt compliance. Padalkar responded to the HSRP question by referring to the vehicle’s “Marathi number plate” and, at another point, countered Pandit by asking where his helmet was. The confrontation was recorded, circulated widely and predictably generated considerable discussion online.

Then, in the early hours of September 3, police arrived at Pandit’s Kothrud residence. Reports say he was taken into custody at around 1 am, with footage of the police action subsequently going viral. The Indian Express reports that some of the cases against him concern allegedly obscene and objectionable remarks involving Maharashtra Higher and Technical Education Minister Chandrakant Patil, a woman corporator and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis.

There is an important fact that should be acknowledged at the outset. One complaint against Pandit relating to Chandrakant Patil was registered at Deccan Police Station on August 30, before his confrontation with Padalkar. That means nobody can responsibly claim, on the evidence currently available, that Padalkar personally ordered Pandit’s arrest or that the HSRP video itself was the offence for which he was arrested.

But acknowledging that fact does not make the manner of the police action any less troubling.

The issue is not whether Santosh Pandit is above the law. He plainly is not. The issue is why allegations arising substantially from words and social-media videos suddenly required the machinery of the state to descend upon his home in the middle of the night. Why was arrest necessary? Why could a notice not suffice? What urgency existed at 1 am that could not have waited until morning? Who made that decision? At what level was it approved?

And, given the political identities of those criticised in the videos, Maharashtra deserves another answer too: was anybody in political power communicating with the police about Santosh Pandit?

Those are not conspiracy theories. They are questions that arise naturally whenever police discretion is exercised in such an extraordinary manner.

Santosh Pandit Does Not Have to Be a Saint for Police Power to Be Questioned

There is a temptation in politically charged cases to divide everyone into heroes and villains. That is unnecessary here.

If Santosh Pandit made obscene, sexually coloured, defamatory or otherwise unlawful remarks, let those allegations be investigated. If prosecutors believe the evidence establishes an offence, let them prosecute him. If a court ultimately finds him guilty, the law can impose the prescribed punishment.

Defending due process does not require defending every word Pandit has ever uttered.

Indeed, this distinction is essential. Otherwise governments can evade every discussion about excessive police action simply by producing something offensive that the accused once said.

The complaint behind the Kothrud case reportedly alleges objectionable material concerning Chandrakant Patil and corporator Mitali Salvekar, as well as another allegedly obscene reference involving Devendra Fadnavis. The FIR reportedly invokes BNS Sections 75(1)(iv), 75(3), 356(2) and 352, together with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Those are allegations that can be investigated.

But investigation is not synonymous with arrest.

That distinction is precisely what appears to have been lost.

What Exactly Was Going to Happen Between 1 AM and 10 AM?

This is the simplest question Pune Police must answer.

Was Santosh Pandit absconding?

Had he disappeared after learning about the complaints?

Had police previously served him notices that he ignored?

Was he refusing to cooperate with investigators?

Was there credible information that he intended to flee?

Was someone in imminent physical danger?

Was there evidence that he was about to destroy material crucial to the investigation?

Was there a witness whom police believed he was about to threaten or intimidate?

If any of those circumstances existed, Pune Police should say so.

But if Pandit was simply at his known residence, easily identifiable, publicly active and available to investigators, the question becomes unavoidable: why did officers need to take him into custody in the middle of the night rather than issue him a notice requiring him to appear for questioning?

This is not a trivial distinction about police etiquette. Arrest means deprivation of liberty by the state. That is one of the most serious powers entrusted to any public authority in a democracy.

It should never become administrative convenience.

And it certainly cannot become theatre.

The Supreme Court Has Already Told Police That Arrest Is Not Routine

The Supreme Court’s January 2026 ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation makes the principles particularly relevant.

Interpreting Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Court emphasised that for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, notice under Section 35(3) is ordinarily the course to be followed and arrest is not automatic. The Court said the investigating officer must satisfy the statutory requirements justifying arrest and record the reasons for exercising that power. It further stressed that an investigation can continue without arrest.

That is the principle Pune Police now need to confront.

The reported offences in the Kothrud FIR fall well within the seven-year threshold relevant to these safeguards. For example, BNS Section 75(3), concerning sexually coloured remarks, carries imprisonment of up to one year; defamation under Section 356(2) carries up to two years; Section 352 carries up to two years; and a first conviction under Section 67 of the IT Act can attract imprisonment of up to three years.

None of that means the alleged conduct is acceptable.

It means something much simpler: the existence of an offence does not answer the separate question of why arrest was necessary.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against confusing the power to arrest with justification for exercising that power. That principle exists precisely because a democracy cannot allow arrest itself to become punishment.

The 1:28 AM FIR Makes the Timeline Even More Extraordinary

There is another fact Pune Police should clarify urgently.

Multiple reports state that the second FIR at Kothrud Police Station was registered at approximately 1:28 am on September 3. Separately, reporting and videos place the police action at Pandit’s residence at around 1 am or in that same early-hours period.

If those timings are accurate, the public deserves a minute-by-minute explanation.

When exactly was the complaint received?

When was the decision made that Pandit needed to be arrested?

When were officers dispatched to his residence?

Under which FIR was he initially being detained?

Had the Kothrud FIR already been formally registered when officers entered his house?

Was the arrest initially connected to the earlier Deccan Police Station case and subsequently linked to the Kothrud case?

These are straightforward factual questions.

The police possess the records capable of answering every one of them.

The more extraordinary an exercise of state power appears, the greater the obligation of the state to explain itself.

Who Ordered the Arrest?

This is where Pune Police cannot hide behind the phrase “a case was registered.”

Cases do not walk to somebody’s home at midnight.

Police officers do.

Somebody evaluates the complaint. Somebody decides whether to issue a notice or make an arrest. Somebody records—or should record—the grounds. Somebody instructs officers to proceed. Somebody supervises the operation.

So who made that decision in Santosh Pandit’s case?

Was it solely the investigating officer?

Was a senior inspector consulted?

Was the relevant DCP informed?

Did the Commissionerate know that officers were going to an activist’s residence in the middle of the night in a politically sensitive social-media case?

And most importantly, did any politician, political aide, party office-bearer or person associated with any of those criticised by Pandit communicate with police officers regarding action against him?

There is presently no evidence establishing that Gopichand Padalkar, Chandrakant Patil or another BJP politician ordered Pandit’s arrest. That distinction must be maintained.

But asking whether political communication occurred is entirely legitimate.

If there was none, Pune Police can say so clearly.

Transparency would actually protect the government and the police from allegations of political intimidation.

Silence does the opposite.

The Padalkar Confrontation Cannot Simply Be Erased From the Context

The earlier Deccan complaint means it would be wrong to claim that Pandit was suddenly booked only after confronting Padalkar.

But chronology still matters.

Pandit publicly confronted a ruling-party MLA over whether the same vehicle regulations imposed upon ordinary citizens were being followed by a political representative. The confrontation circulated widely. Reports then emerged of alleged abusive or threatening calls from people described as Padalkar supporters, although the authenticity of the reported audio has not been independently established.

Within days, Pandit was in police custody.

Perhaps all of that is coincidental.

Perhaps Pune Police had already independently decided that arrest was indispensable.

Perhaps there is a convincing investigative reason for the timing.

Then provide it.

Democratic accountability does not require citizens to pretend that politically awkward chronology does not exist simply because causation has not yet been proved.

The burden on the public is not to suppress suspicion.

The burden on institutions is to act transparently enough that reasonable suspicion can be dispelled.

If This Is Routine Policing, Show Maharashtra the Routine

There is another test Pune Police should comfortably be able to pass.

How often are people accused of abusive, defamatory or objectionable social-media posts arrested from their homes at 1 am?

How many comparable cases in Pune over the past year resulted in immediate nighttime arrests rather than notices requiring the accused to appear before investigators?

If this is normal policing, the data should demonstrate that.

If it is not normal policing, then why was Santosh Pandit’s case treated exceptionally?

India’s internet is hardly short of obscene language, vicious personal attacks, political abuse, defamatory allegations or sexually crude rhetoric. Politicians themselves routinely accuse one another in terms that would embarrass civil conversation.

Yet the police do not arrive at every offender’s residence in the middle of the night.

That is precisely why selective intensity matters.

The rule of law is not merely about finding a statutory section capable of being written into an FIR. The rule of law also requires consistency, proportionality and restraint in the exercise of discretion.

Otherwise identical conduct can receive radically different treatment depending on whom the accused has angered.

Political Power Cannot Become a Fast Lane to Coercive Policing

This principle should not change depending on which party is in government.

BJP supporters should be as concerned about excessive policing under a BJP-led government as they would be if the same conduct occurred under a Congress government.

A minister deserves legal protection.

An MLA deserves legal protection.

A corporator deserves legal protection.

So does an ordinary citizen.

But elected office cannot become a premium subscription to the coercive machinery of the state.

If somebody defames a minister, investigate the allegation according to law.

If somebody sexually harasses a woman, investigate the allegation according to law.

If somebody threatens another person, investigate according to law.

But the identity and political influence of the person offended must never determine how aggressively the police deploy their powers.

The moment citizens begin to believe that criticising somebody powerful can transform an ordinary investigation into a midnight arrest, democratic trust begins to erode.

That damage extends far beyond Santosh Pandit.

Pune Police Cannot Treat an FIR as the Answer

The easiest institutional response would be to recite the sections of law registered against Pandit and declare the matter closed.

That will not do.

An FIR can explain what police allege Santosh Pandit did.

It does not explain why police needed to arrest him at 1 am.

Those are different questions.

The police must explain what circumstances made arrest necessary, whether Section 35 notice procedures were considered, what reasons were formally recorded, when those reasons were recorded, who authorised the operation and whether Pandit had previously failed to cooperate.

These are questions about police conduct—not Pandit’s conduct.

And in a constitutional democracy, police conduct is subject to scrutiny too.

The BJP Should Want Pune Police to Answer

There is an obvious political reason for the ruling establishment to demand transparency rather than dismiss criticism.

If no BJP leader had anything to do with the decision, an explanation from Pune Police would help establish exactly that.

If the arrest was made solely on independently assessed legal grounds, supported by recorded reasons satisfying BNSS requirements, publish the relevant explanation consistent with the needs of the investigation.

If no elected representative contacted investigators seeking action, state it.

The government should not allow legitimate questions about police procedure to mutate into allegations of political vendetta simply because officials refuse to explain themselves.

For a government that speaks frequently about the rule of law, this is an opportunity to demonstrate what that principle means when someone criticises its own representatives.

Santosh Pandit Is Not the Real Issue Anymore

The easiest mistake would be to turn this into a referendum on Santosh Pandit’s personality.

It is much bigger than him.

He may have said things that were objectionable. He may ultimately have legal questions to answer. None of that changes the obligation of the state to exercise arrest powers proportionately.

Today the target may be an influencer whose language some people dislike.

Tomorrow it may be a journalist.

A civic activist.

A whistleblower.

A political opponent.

Or simply an ordinary citizen whose video embarrasses somebody powerful.

Police officers do not merely enforce laws. They possess the authority to deprive citizens of liberty. The legitimacy of that authority depends upon restraint.

When that restraint appears absent, the correct democratic response is not silence. It is scrutiny.

Pune Police Must Tell Maharashtra What Happened

Pune Police should therefore provide a clear public explanation of the circumstances surrounding the arrest.

Not the evidence they intend to present at trial. Not confidential investigative material. Not rhetoric about social-media responsibility.

The basic facts.

Why was arrest necessary?

Why at that hour?

Was a Section 35 notice issued or considered?

What reasons justified dispensing with the ordinary course?

Precisely when was the Kothrud FIR registered relative to officers arriving at Pandit’s home?

Who authorised the arrest?

And did anybody from the political establishment communicate with police concerning Santosh Pandit before that operation?

There may be perfectly lawful answers to all of these questions.

But those answers need to be given.

Because a citizen questioning an MLA about whether he follows the same laws as everyone else is not an inconvenience democracy should fear. It is democracy functioning exactly as intended.

And when that citizen finds police at his door in the middle of the night days later, even in connection with separate allegations, democracy demands something else too:

an explanation.

Santosh Pandit should receive no special immunity because he calls himself an activist. If he broke the law, prosecute him.

But neither should politicians receive special protection from scrutiny because they occupy public office.

Until Pune Police adequately explains the necessity, timing and chain of command behind this arrest, the disturbing question will remain:

Did Santosh Pandit simply encounter the ordinary operation of law—or did somebody decide that a man asking uncomfortable questions needed to experience the power of the state?

The evidence currently available does not justify asserting the latter as fact.

But after a 1 am arrest, Pune Police cannot reasonably demand that Maharashtra stop asking the question.