The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a PIL by Save India Foundation seeking criminal proceedings against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protestors. The NGO alleged the protestors committed arson, assaulted police personnel, and damaged public property at Jantar Mantar.
The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a PIL filed by the NGO Save India Foundation. The petition sought directions to the Delhi Police to start criminal proceedings against protestors associated with the Cockroach Janta Party.
The NGO alleged that the protestors were involved in arson, physically attacking police personnel, and damaging public property at Jantar Mantar.
A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia disposed of the petition, filed by the NGO Save India Foundation, permitting it to make a representation to the authorities concerned instead.
The order said,
“Heard the counsel for the petitioners. This PIL has been filed with the following prayers. We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of Damage to Public Properties Act and the 2018 judgement, we permit the petitioner to represent his cause with the authorities concerned, the representation shall be attended to and appropriate decision warranted under law shall be taken. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner.”
The order is brief, but its reasoning rests on a settled proposition. The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 already criminalises the destruction of public property, and the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India supplemented it with a detailed protocol for agitations requiring the appointment of nodal officers, videography of protest sites, and the registration and investigation of cases where damage occurs.
Where such machinery exists and has not been shown to have failed, a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction will ordinarily decline to issue directions of the kind sought, since doing so would substitute judicial supervision for a statutory process that the petitioner has not yet attempted to invoke.
The Court accordingly preserved the petitioner’s remedy rather than extinguishing it: the representation must be considered, and the decision communicated.
The petition contended that the Delhi Police had failed to act against demonstrators who allegedly assaulted personnel on duty and damaged public property.
It went considerably further in its framing. The pleading asserted that the protesters were following a template of civil unrest drawn from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, and that messages circulating on social media invoked those episodes to incite the removal of the present government. It alleged that the agitation worked by assigning sequential tasks designed to foster institutional defiance, escalating into hate speech and ultimatums seeking the resignation of the Union Education Minister and the Prime Minister, coupled with threats of consequences if key organisers were arrested.
It also alleged that certain legal practitioners were exploiting their professional position to encourage citizens to disregard State regulations, by offering unconditional free legal aid and assurances against criminal consequences.
The Court did not examine any of these assertions, and none has been established. The allegation concerning members of the Bar names no individual and remains untested.
The Save India Foundation has faced sustained judicial criticism over its litigation. In an order of February 24 this year, the High Court recorded that the organisation had filed 37 public interest litigations between 2024 and 2026, along with 11 writ petitions, and observed that it was unnecessarily raking up the past with no public interest involved.
On February 11, the Court expressed displeasure over its repeated petitions concerning mosques, dargahs and waqf properties and its practice of commenting on pending matters on social media, having voiced similar criticism on January 14.
The same Bench continues to hear petitions alleging excessive force by the police during the July 20 ‘Sansad Chalo’ march, having issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police, directed the preservation of CCTV footage and videography, and listed that matter for September 11.
It has separately agreed to hear a PIL seeking an NIA investigation into the protests, and on Friday took up an urgent challenge to the internet shutdown around Jantar Mantar. The Supreme Court has listed a plea alleging police excesses for July 27.