Delhi High Court refuses urgent hearing of PIL against Cockroach Janta Party’s June 6 protest

Cockroach Janta Party news: The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to grant urgent hearing in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking preventive, regulatory, and crowd-control measures in relation to the protest being organised by Abhijeet Dipke’s Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi on Saturday (June 6).

Justices Saurabh Banerjee and Amit Sharma were hearing the PIL filed by an NGO, Save India Foundation, which was mentioned for urgent hearing by the counsels of the petitioner.

Despite the plea’s emphasis on urgency in view of the proposed June 6 protest, Justices Saurabh Banerjee and Amit Sharma declined to grant urgent listing of the matter. (Image enhanced using AI)

“Save India Foundation has invoked the extraordinary powers of the high court under Article 226 during the summer vacations and mentioned before the bench that an extraordinary situation is being created by the Cockroach Janta Party, who are asking people to gather at Parliament Street police station/ Jantar Mantar as one of the leaders would land at Delhi airport and move towards the New Delhi area,” confirmed advocate Umesh Sharma, who appeared for the NGO.

He added, “The petition was mentioned for urgent hearing today as a disruption of essential services, viz., movement of ambulances, may take place on which the court made an oral observation that police will take care of it. The court did not agree to take up the matter today for hearing on an urgent basis; hence, based on the observation of the court, Save India Foundation has decided to make a detailed representation to DCP, New Delhi, to ensure the observations of the court.”

PIL flagged concerns over law and order, traffic and public safety

The PIL sought directions to authorities to take immediate preventive measures in anticipation of a large-scale mobilisation allegedly called by the Cockroach Janta Party at Jantar Mantar and other parts of the national capital on June 6.

Save India Foundation named the Union of India, Delhi Police Commissioner, the Government of NCT of Delhi, the New Delhi District Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioners of Police for New Delhi and IGI Airport, and the Delhi Traffic Police as respondents.

According to the plea, the petitioner became aware on June 4 of what it described as a “massive, unregulated mobilisation call” by the group through social media platforms, particularly Instagram.

Story continues below this ad

The NGO alleged that the campaign by the Cockroach Janta Party was being amplified online and could result in a large gathering at Jantar Mantar and surrounding areas in Delhi.

The petition claimed that social media content linked to the mobilisation encouraged activities that could lead to disruption of public order and create traffic, security and crowd-management concerns in the national capital.

Allegations of online campaign and calls for mass gathering

The NGO alleged that the social media campaign by the Cockroach Janta Party had targeted young people and encouraged participation in coordinated online and offline activities. It further claimed that online content associated with the group contained calls for a physical gathering of large numbers of people on June 6.

According to the petition, some of the videos and posts referred to protests near sensitive locations and allegedly contained messages calling for disruption of normal public functioning.

Story continues below this ad

The plea also alleged that certain online communications drew parallels with political upheavals witnessed in neighbouring countries and encouraged participants to mobilise against the ruling establishment.

Representation sent to authorities on June 4

The petitioner stated that it had submitted a representation to the Delhi Police Commissioner and other authorities on June 4 seeking immediate preventive action against this protest by Cockroach Janta Party.

In the representation, Save India Foundation requested authorities to verify whether any permission had been sought by the Cockroach Janta Party or granted for the proposed protest, prohibit unauthorised gatherings at the IGI Airport and airport approach roads, and ensure that any demonstration was confined to a designated site with fixed timings and crowd limits.

The NGO also sought deployment of adequate traffic, police, medical and crowd-control arrangements, videography of the event, and consideration of preventive measures under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, if authorities apprehended a threat to public tranquillity.

Story continues below this ad

Reliance on Shaheen Bagh judgment

In support of its case, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (the Shaheen Bagh case), arguing that while the right to peaceful protest is protected under the Constitution, public spaces cannot be occupied in a manner that completely disrupts the rights of other citizens.

The petition further alleged that some online content encouraged participants to carry items such as pepper spray and wooden sticks, and argued that such messages raised concerns about the nature of the proposed gathering.

Reliefs sought before high court

The PIL sought directions to the Delhi Police to act on the representation submitted by the petitioner and deploy preventive, regulatory and crowd-control measures at all major entry points into Delhi, including IGI Airport, metro stations and highway corridors in the wake of protest by the Cockroach Janta Party.

It also sought directions to regulate, restrict or relocate the proposed gathering to ensure that hospitals, airports, railway stations, courts, emergency services and other essential infrastructure could continue functioning without disruption.

Story continues below this ad

Additionally, the petitioner requested that if authorities apprehended a law-and-order situation, the mobilisation should either be shifted to an alternative venue or subjected to strict regulation and videographic monitoring.

However, despite the plea’s emphasis on urgency in view of the proposed June 6 protest, the vacation bench declined to grant urgent listing of the matter.