A PIL seeking Rs 50 crore from the Cockroach Janta Party as interim compensation for disruption caused by the anti-CEC protests will not be heard by the Delhi High Court, which has asked the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (October 28) disposed of a public interest litigation that sought Rs 50 crore from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) as interim compensation for alleged disruption to the public during the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner, and gave the petitioner liberty to approach the Supreme Court, where similar matters are pending [Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India and Others].
The PIL was heard by a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma. It was filed by Advocate Rakesh Kumar Saini.
What the petition sought
The petition sought that a “community fine” be imposed on the CJP, which it alleged had organised the anti-CEC protests in Delhi, so that members of the public who suffered disruption could be compensated. Apart from the Rs 50 crore sought as interim compensation, it asked that the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Ministry of Law and Justice be directed to frame guidelines for imposing and recovering such a fine.
The petitioner argued that the rights of ordinary citizens affected by the demonstrations also had to be weighed, and that compensation would deter organisations from causing similar disruption. He told the Bench that the pleas pending before the Supreme Court mainly sought to prevent such activities, whereas his petition sought compensation for the harm already suffered. These allegations against the CJP are the petitioner’s and are untested, and the party’s response is not on record.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues Notice On All Delhi Protest Pleas, Asks Both Sides To Name Nodal Counsel
Background
The litigation over the October 10 protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, held over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, has largely moved to the Supreme Court. On October 15, a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice in all the pending petitions arising from the protests, which raise complaints of mass detentions, alleged police excesses, Metro closures and the mobile internet shutdown, and asked both sides to appoint nodal counsel to identify the overlapping issues. That batch also includes a challenge to Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and to the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.
The Delhi High Court has separately dealt with matters involving CJP leaders, including their challenge to custody and peace bond conditions. The Delhi Police, in its affidavit before the Supreme Court, has alleged that the organisers disregarded the requirement of seeking prior permission, a claim the petitioners in those matters dispute.
“More than 50 petitions are pending”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that several petitions had been filed in the Supreme Court, including by small traders who said their livelihoods came to a standstill because of the protests. He suggested that the petitioner could join those proceedings, while accepting that the plea raised a valid public law issue.
Acting Chief Justice Sambre asked about the scope of the proceedings before the top court, remarking:
“What is scope of those proceedings? More than 50 petitions are pending before the Apex Court.”
ALSO READ: “Would Authorities Not Be Justified In Stricter Conditions?”: Delhi HC On CJP Peace Bond Breach
Judicial discipline
Noting the Solicitor General’s submission that similar issues were already before the Supreme Court, the High Court held that it should not run parallel proceedings and risk conflicting orders:
“Judicial discipline warrants that in such eventuality, this court must stay its hands away from proceedings.”
The petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. The High Court did not examine the merits of the claim for a community fine or compensation.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India and Others
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15878/2026
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India; petitioner’s counsel not known