The Delhi High Court PIL seeking criminal action against protestors of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) march has been declined. The Court held that existing statutory mechanisms and Supreme Court guidelines already govern police action and recovery for property damage. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to approach the competent executive authorities.
Court Refuses PIL Seeking Criminal Prosecution of Demonstrators
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The petition sought directions to the Delhi Police to identify and prosecute participants allegedly involved in violence during the CJP protest march at Jantar Mantar.
The petition was filed by NGO Save India Foundation in Save India Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.
While disposing of the petition, the Bench observed that the relief sought falls within existing statutory law enforcement procedures. It also noted that Supreme Court guidelines already provide a framework for dealing with damage to public property.
The Court observed:
“Those mechanisms in terms of the mandate of the Supreme Court are in place. Approach the authorities and they will act… If any such representation is made, the same shall be attended to and an appropriate decision under law shall be taken.”
Background and Allegations Raised in the Petition
The petition concerned events that allegedly took place on July 20, 2026. Thousands of students and young professionals had reportedly marched from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament.
The petitioner alleged that some demonstrators were involved in arson and stone-pelting. It also alleged physical assaults on police personnel and extensive damage to public property in central Delhi.
Accordingly, the plea sought directions to law enforcement agencies to:
- Identify protestors and organisers using CCTV footage and social media records.
- Register criminal cases under the applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
- Prosecute those responsible for the alleged offences.
- Recover the cost of damaged public property from organisers and participants in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines.
Statutory Mechanisms and Parallel Judicial Proceedings
However, the High Court declined to issue direct judicial directions under its writ jurisdiction. The Bench emphasized that parties seeking criminal investigation must first use the available statutory remedies.
For instance, they may submit formal representations to senior police officials. They may also approach the competent Magistrate under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), where applicable.
The Court also granted the petitioner liberty to approach the executive authorities. If a representation is submitted, the authorities must consider it and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
Judicial Framework
| Legal Route | Petitioner’s Request | High Court’s Determination |
|---|---|---|
| Public Interest Litigation (PIL) | Court-directed FIR registration and recovery of property damage costs | Refused; statutory complaint mechanisms cannot be bypassed |
| Statutory Remedy under BNSS | Police investigation or complaint before a competent Magistrate | Permitted |
| Recovery of Damage Costs | Direct recovery order against CJP organisers | Governed by existing Supreme Court guidelines |
Related Proceedings Over Jantar Mantar Demonstrations
The ruling comes amid several legal proceedings connected with the Jantar Mantar demonstrations. In separate PIL proceedings, the High Court had earlier issued notice over allegations of excessive police force against student protestors.
Additionally, the authorities were directed to preserve CCTV footage, PCR logs, and video records linked to the incident.
Thus, the Delhi High Court PIL ruling reinforces the need to follow established statutory procedures when seeking criminal investigation or recovery of public property damage.
