Delhi High Court Declines PIL on Alleged Police Excess During CJP Protest, Says Legal Remedies Already Available

Yugcharan News | 22 July 2026

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought judicial intervention over allegations of excessive force by the Delhi Police during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest march in the national capital. The petition had also requested the registration of an FIR, the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), preservation of evidence related to the incident, and protection for activist Sonam Wangchuk and other protesters.

The matter was heard urgently after the petitioner alleged that police had used excessive force while dispersing demonstrators during the "Sansad Chalo" march held on July 18. The protest, organised amid the ongoing controversy over the NEET examination and broader youth-related concerns, had attracted thousands of participants from different parts of the country.

However, after hearing submissions, the High Court ruled that the reliefs sought in the petition could not be entertained in a PIL, particularly because legal proceedings concerning some of the issues had already been initiated by the affected parties. The Bench clarified that statutory remedies remain available under the law for complaints regarding any alleged cognizable offence.

Court Says Earlier Proceedings Already Cover Wangchuk-Related Issues

During the hearing, the Bench observed that a significant portion of the petition revolved around the events of July 18 involving social activist Sonam Wangchuk, who had been participating in an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar.

According to the petition, Wangchuk was allegedly removed from the protest site and shifted to Safdarjung Hospital against his wishes. The petitioner argued that such action required judicial scrutiny and sought directions restraining authorities from taking similar action against Wangchuk or other protesters without independent medical opinion.

The Court, however, pointed out that Wangchuk's wife had already approached the judiciary regarding the same incident. It noted that both a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) had already been disposed of through an order passed on July 21.

Since those proceedings had already addressed the matter, the Bench stated that the issues relating to Wangchuk could not be reopened through another PIL.

Bench Declines Request for Court-Monitored Investigation

The petitioner also requested the Court to direct the Delhi Police or another competent authority to register an FIR into the alleged use of force while dispersing protesters. Additionally, the plea sought constitution of an SIT to independently investigate the incident and preserve all available records, including CCTV footage and other evidence.

The Court, however, indicated that such relief could not be granted directly in the present proceedings.

The Bench observed that if any cognizable offence had indeed occurred, the petitioner or any aggrieved individual could invoke the remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which provides a legal mechanism for lodging complaints and seeking registration of criminal cases.

During the hearing, the judges remarked that statutory procedures should be followed before extraordinary judicial intervention is sought.

Court Refers to BNSS Provisions

The Bench also discussed the procedural framework introduced under the BNSS.

The judges noted that under the new criminal procedure law, complaints regarding alleged offences undergo a prescribed process before an FIR is registered in certain situations.

While hearing arguments, the Court stated that if the police fail to act upon a complaint, the complainant has remedies available under the law and can approach the appropriate authorities or competent courts as provided in the statutory framework.

The Bench observed that such legal mechanisms are specifically designed to address grievances relating to criminal offences.

SIT Can Be Considered Only After Legal Process Begins

When the petitioner's counsel argued that an independent Special Investigation Team should be constituted because the matter involved public interest, the Court expressed reservations.

According to the Bench, the formation of an SIT ordinarily arises only after a criminal case has been registered and the circumstances justify such an investigation.

The Court indicated that it would not be appropriate to constitute an SIT in the absence of the legal process contemplated under the criminal law.

The judges further remarked that the petitioner should first pursue the remedies already available under the BNSS before seeking extraordinary directions from the constitutional court.

PIL Focused on Single Incident, Says Court

Another significant observation made during the hearing was regarding the nature of the petition itself.

The Bench stated that although the matter had been presented as a public interest litigation, the grievance essentially related to one particular incident involving specific individuals.

The Court indicated that such disputes are ordinarily addressed through individual legal proceedings rather than broad public interest petitions, especially when those directly affected have already initiated legal action.

This formed one of the primary reasons for declining to entertain the PIL.

Petition Ultimately Dismissed

After hearing submissions from both sides, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.

While pronouncing its order, the Bench clarified that the prayers relating to the Wangchuk incident could not be entertained because similar issues had already been considered in earlier proceedings.

Regarding the remaining requests—including registration of an FIR and preservation of records—the Court held that appropriate legal remedies remain available under the BNSS and other applicable laws.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by either side.

The Bench also observed that the dismissal of the PIL would not prevent the petitioner or any affected person from pursuing remedies available under law before the competent authorities or courts.

Background of the Protest

The controversy stems from the "Sansad Chalo" protest organised by supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party, a youth-led movement that has been demanding accountability over the NEET examination controversy and related issues affecting students.

The demonstrations intensified in New Delhi after protesters demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and raised concerns regarding alleged examination irregularities.

Social activist Sonam Wangchuk also joined the broader movement through a hunger strike, attracting support from several public figures and opposition leaders.

Following police action during the July 18 protest, allegations of excessive force and unlawful detention surfaced from sections of the protesters. Authorities, however, have maintained that actions taken during the demonstration were in accordance with law and necessary to maintain public order.

With Wednesday's order, the Delhi High Court has declined to entertain the PIL while reiterating that individuals alleging any wrongdoing by authorities remain free to pursue remedies available under the existing legal framework. The Court's observations leave open the possibility of appropriate legal action through ordinary criminal or civil procedures, depending on the nature of individual grievances.