Back
: No public interest in seeking inquiry into CJP protest lathi charge
The has firmly declined to entertain a that sought a into the conflicting accounts surrounding the alleged use of lathis by during a protest organised by the in the national capital. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the petition on , holding that the jurisdiction is not intended to adjudicate disputes based on media reports and official statements. The court observed that there was no public interest in the plea and that .
Background: The CJP protest and conflicting narratives
The controversy traces back to , when the Cockroach Janta Party called for a "Chalo Sansad" march in New Delhi, protesting alleged irregularities in the NEET examination. Supporters gathered at Jantar Mantar and reportedly attempted to march towards Parliament. During the protest, videos and media reports showed police personnel using force, including lathis and tear gas, to disperse the crowd. Several protesters alleged excessive force and a lathi-charge, while also claiming injuries. However, publicly denied reports of sporadic violence and detentions, stating that no such incident had taken place and that the protest was managed professionally.
This stark contradiction between media accounts and the official police version formed the basis of the filed by Nitin Naresh, who described himself as belonging to the media community. Naresh had submitted a representation to the authorities seeking a fact-finding exercise to ascertain the truth, but claimed he received no response. He then approached the High Court, praying that his representation be directed for decision and an independent inquiry be ordered.
Court’s observations: No conflict, no evidence
During the hearing, the Bench expressed strong reservations about entertaining the petition. The court questioned whether there was actually any conflict between the official statements of and the . It pointed out that media reports, by themselves, cannot constitute evidence and that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any genuine public interest. The Bench orally remarked, “Is there any conflict between the official statements of the and the Central Police Forces? We will not entertain such petitions… All sorts of matters are being filed here. There is no public interest in this.”
The court further noted that the petitioner’s representation did not impose any duty on the to respond, and that filing a based on “high sounding words like accountability and transparency” could not be done in a vacuum. The Division Bench dismissed the , holding that the jurisdiction under is not meant to adjudicate arising from media coverage.
Legal analysis: The limits of jurisdiction
The judgment reaffirms a well-established principle of Indian constitutional law: is a powerful tool for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for ensuring good governance, but it cannot be used to settle factual disputes that are essentially contested between private parties or between a citizen and the state based on unverified media reports. The courts have consistently held that a petitioner must demonstrate a , a , and a that affects a large section of society. Mere curiosity or a desire to test the veracity of official statements does not meet this threshold.
The court’s observation that media reports are not evidence echoes the settled position of law. While the press plays a crucial role in a democracy, its reports cannot be treated as conclusive proof of facts. A cannot be founded solely on newspaper articles or video clips; there must be some material that the court can rely upon. In this case, the petitioner did not present any independent verification or from witnesses to support the claim of a lathi-charge.
Separate proceedings and acknowledgment of complaint
Interestingly, the controversy over the CJP protest also reached the High Court through a separate case. In that proceeding, agreed to acknowledge a complaint alleging the use of force, including lathis and pellet guns, during the demonstration. However, the court noted that the allegations in that complaint remained under consideration and could not, by themselves, establish that the alleged acts had taken place. This parallel development highlights that while the authorities are willing to consider specific complaints, they are not obligated to conduct a roving inquiry at the behest of a third-party petitioner.
Implications for and police accountability
The dismissal of this sends a clear message to potential litigants: cannot be used as a substitute for an investigative mechanism. Lawyers and activists must ensure that their petitions are grounded in concrete evidence and a clear public cause. While the court did not rule on the merits of the allegations, its decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of as a remedy for genuine public grievances, not as a platform for disputing official narratives based on media speculation.
For the legal community, the case also serves as a reminder of the of media reports. In an era of pervasive social media and instant news, courts will continue to demand reliable proof before entertaining challenges to official actions. This judgment may influence how future PILs concerning police conduct are framed, encouraging petitioners to collect sworn statements, forensic evidence, or independent inquiries before approaching the court.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in is a textbook example of in the domain of . By declining to order a into the CJP lathi-charge claims, the court has preserved the distinction between a genuine public cause and a mere dispute over facts. While the alleged use of force remains a matter of concern, the remedy lies not in a but in the established mechanisms of complaint, investigation, and criminal prosecution. As the court itself observed, the doors of cannot be opened for every matter that catches the imagination after reading a newspaper.
