New Delhi: It is not often that a govt welcomes a court notice. Rarer still, when both the petitioner and govt urge the court to examine a PIL, but it declines.On Friday, Delhi High Court junked a PIL seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) or any “specialised” agency into allegations of foreign funding against the Cockroach Janta Party-led march to Parliament on July 20 to protest against the NEET paper leak.A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the allegations of vandalism and assault of policemen are in the knowledge and notice of the authorities, who would take action according to the law. HC also said under the law, it was for Centre on the recommendation of Delhi govt, and not the court, to refer any case to NIA for investigation.Interestingly, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested the court may issue notice and indicated govt will file a status report/reply, but the bench would have none of it. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma also submitted that in an earlier PIL, the court had invoked “public law” to entertain a plea against police action, and similarly, in the present PIL, it can seek the “complete picture” to take a “holistic view”.But the bench pointed out that there is an FIR, and recourse to NIA has to be taken by the respective govt.“How can this be a PIL? You are asking for an opinion that these are fit cases. This job has been entrusted to the central govt,” the court remarked while hearing the PIL by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, former vice-president of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.“You approach the authorities; they will take action,” the bench told the petitioner, who also sought identification of “all persons responsible for acts of violence, vandalism, obstruction of emergency services, damage to public and private property and other offences” and registration of an FIR against them.With the bench making it clear it won’t wade into a matter where govt has to decide, the SG “advised” the petitioner’s counsel to consider withdrawing the PIL, following which he requested the bench to withdraw it. “The PIL is dismissed as withdrawn,” the court said, ending the proceedings.Lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha, appearing for Aggarwal, contended that a probe by NIA or CBI should be ordered considering the gravity of the offences committed by the “unruly mob” on July 20, the day of the Sansad Chalo march. “The situation in Delhi is beyond control. Metro is closed. Roads are blocked,” Sinha said.The court, however, said it can order transfer of an investigation to CBI if it was not satisfied with the progress of a primary investigating agency, and that stage was yet to come. It clarified that it was “not reflecting” on what has been “reported”, but was considering the legal issues.The petitioner’s counsel also alleged that certain protesters attacked a female journalist, emphasising that the court has already issued notice on PILs over alleged police brutality on protesters. “Don’t try to draw that dichotomy. Let’s not go into all this. Please, I request,” the court responded.It said these concerns call for a “comprehensive investigation” to ascertain if any “external elements were involved in activities prejudicial to public order, national security, and the sovereignty and integrity of India”.In the PIL, Aggarwal said the participation of activists and political leaders, as well as the alleged involvement of foreign-funded organisations, has raised serious questions about the “true nature, purpose and objectives of the protest”.
