The Delhi High Court heard a PIL challenging alleged surveillance of protesters at Jantar Mantar. The petitioner argued that videography and facial recognition technology infringe the fundamental right to privacy, raising serious constitutional concerns over protest monitoring.
The Delhi High Court on Friday permitted the withdrawal of a public interest litigation seeking an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the protests over the alleged NEET paper leak and the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march, after subjecting the petition to sustained questioning on maintainability and holding that the decision to entrust a case to the agency rests with the Central Government under the statute, not with the Court.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the power to hand a case to the NIA operates within the framework of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, and cannot be assumed by a writ court.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that notice be issued and the petition tagged with the connected matters already before the Bench.
The Court, however, went to the threshold question of whether the petition was maintainable at all, asking the petitioner to point to the source of the power he was invoking.
The Chief Justice asked,
“Show us the statutory mechanism. NIA is an investigating agency, not an inquiry agency. At this stage, if there is an FIR, the remedy lies under Section 6 of the NIA Act. How is this writ petition maintainable?”
Counsel submitted that the Court could direct an investigation by the NIA or by any other specialised agency, contending that the gravity of the incident warranted it.
The Bench’s questioning turned on Section 6 of the NIA Act, which lays down a specific sequence once an FIR is registered. Under that provision, the officer in charge of the police station forwards a report to the State Government, which transmits it to the Central Government; the Central Government then determines, within a prescribed period, whether the offence is a Scheduled Offence and whether it is a fit case to be investigated by the agency.
The Centre may also direct an NIA investigation of its own motion.
Pressing that point, the Court observed,
“Section 6 requires an FIR. The statute lays down the procedure thereafter. How can we first order an inquiry and then direct an NIA investigation?”
When the petitioner invoked Section 6(3), arguing that the incident had ramifications across the country and called for a specialised agency, the Bench reiterated that the determination is one for the executive,
“Whether a case deserves an NIA probe depends on the statutory process… The Centre can also refer a matter to the NIA suo motu under Section 6.”
The petitioner sought support from the Supreme Court’s ruling arising out of the Padmaavat controversy, which had addressed the State’s obligations in maintaining law and order.
The Chief Justice was unpersuaded,
“The Padmaavat judgment only summarises the legal principles applicable in such situations.”
When counsel argued that the protests had disrupted ordinary life, causing road blockades and the closure of metro stations, the Chief Justice responded,
“Don’t confuse the issues.”
Returning to the reliefs actually sought, the Bench remarked,
“Look at your prayers. You seek directions for an NIA inquiry and investigation. Whether a crime is investigated by the State Police or the NIA is for the competent authorities to decide.”
It added,
“As far as an NIA probe is concerned, it is for the Centre to take a call, either suo motu or on the basis of an SHO’s report.”
Framing the constitutional limit on its own jurisdiction, the Court held,
“We cannot substitute our satisfaction for the satisfaction that the Central Government is required to record under the NIA Act.”
The Bench also declined to act on the visual material placed before it, observing,
“An inquiry has to be conducted under the supervision of the appropriate authority. We cannot issue directions merely by looking at photographs and videos. Let the authorities form their opinion first. The question is one of following the law and the statutory framework.”
Faced with these observations, counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue other remedies.
Allowing the request, the Bench ordered,
“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be constrained to withdraw the petition, with liberty to take recourse to any other legal remedy which may be available to him under law, including the remedy of approaching the authorities concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.”
The PIL sought the registration of an FIR and an NIA investigation into the protests and the subsequent march, alleging a wider conspiracy and the involvement of organised elements.
The petitioner, approaching the Court in his capacity as a citizen and voter, contended that what began as a demonstration over the alleged NEET paper leak and the demand for the Union Education Minister’s resignation had been transformed into a politically driven agitation involving activists, political leaders and allegedly foreign-funded organisations.
The plea traced the first protest to Jantar Mantar on June 6, 2026, and stated that Sonam Wangchuk subsequently joined and began a hunger strike. It referred to publicly available material concerning Wangchuk’s alleged associations with certain foreign organisations and funding institutions, contending that these merited examination by the competent authorities.
On the events of July 20, the petition alleged that a pre-planned march was organised from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament, and that leaders and members of the Aam Aadmi Party, the Samajwadi Party and the Azad Samaj Party participated in and shaped it, converting what was projected as a student demonstration into a political one.
None of these allegations was examined by the Court, and none stands established. The petition was withdrawn before any of them could be tested.
Case Title: Ms. Aishe Ghosh v. Union of India & Anr.