A Public Interest Litigation has been formally initiated in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, calling for a comprehensive Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the fatal shooting of Parvinder Singh, a prominent anti-drug activist. The petitioner, a social worker based in the Sirsa district of neighboring Haryana, contends that the local police response to the incident was severely deficient, warranting an independent inquiry by a central agency. The legal move underscores growing concerns regarding the intersection of grassroots anti-narcotics activism and the regulation of pharmaceutical medical stores in the region.

The incident occurred on October 13, 2026, in Mansa, Punjab, and was captured in real-time by the victim himself. Parvinder Singh, known to his followers as Jhota, operated an “Anti-Drug Task Force” and maintained a significant social media presence dedicated to exposing the illicit distribution of habit-forming pharmaceutical drugs. According to the petition, Singh entered a local chemist shop located near a railway crossing in Mansa to confront the proprietor, Ashwini Kumar, over allegations of illegal sales. The resulting confrontation, streamed to approximately 63,000 followers, allegedly culminated in the chemist opening fire, leading to the activist’s death.

Subsequent to the incident, an First Information Report (FIR) was registered on October 14, 2026, at the Mansa Police Station City-2. The charges invoke serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 103(1), which pertains to murder, alongside sections concerning abetment, criminal conspiracy, and reckless conduct. Furthermore, the authorities have included charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act to address the utilization of a firearm in the commission of the crime.

Contesting the Efficacy of Local Law Enforcement

The petitioner’s request for a CBI investigation is predicated on several grievances regarding the conduct of the local authorities. Central to these allegations is the claim that the deceased had reached out to the police while recording the confrontation, yet officers failed to arrive in time to prevent the fatal shooting. The petition further alleges that once the police did arrive, there was an inexplicable delay of approximately 20 to 25 minutes before they reached the scene and a subsequent failure to promptly transport the victim to the Civil Hospital in Mansa. By the time he was processed at the medical facility, the victim was declared brought dead.

By seeking a transfer of the investigation, the petitioner argues that the perceived negligence and the potential for local bias necessitate a more robust, neutral oversight mechanism. The petition explicitly questions the integrity of the ongoing local investigation, suggesting that the complexity of the systemic issues involved—specifically the oversight of medical license holders—cannot be adequately addressed by district-level police. The petitioner emphasizes that given the shared social and economic ties between the border districts of Mansa and Sirsa, the violent death of a high-profile activist has caused significant public unrest, directly engaging fundamental constitutional protections.

Scrutinizing Regulatory Compliance and Licensing Oversight

Beyond the immediate criminal proceedings related to the homicide, the PIL casts a wide net regarding the regulatory environment that allowed the chemist to operate. The petition demands an independent inquiry into the processes by which Ashwini Kumar was granted both his drug license and his arms license. It raises fundamental questions about whether these licenses were subjected to the required vetting, renewal, and ongoing monitoring standards mandated by the state.

The history between the victim and the accused is also highlighted to illustrate potential failures in administrative oversight. In July 2023, Singh had formally alleged that the same medical store was selling banned intoxicating capsules. While a case was initially registered on his complaint, the situation resulted in a complex legal deadlock, with a cross-case being registered against Singh, which eventually led to his detention until September 2023. The petitioner argues that the fact that a chemist, who had previously been the subject of documented allegations of illicit drug sales, was permitted to maintain both his business operations and his legal possession of a firearm points to a systemic breakdown in regulatory accountability.

The petition contends that the killing and the resulting atmospheric instability affect citizens' fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It seeks to compel the court to look past the individual criminal culpability of the accused and examine the administrative failures that allowed a contentious figure to maintain, and potentially abuse, their access to regulated goods and weaponry.

As it stands, the procedural path forward remains fluid. While the FIR has established the immediate legal framework for the murder trial, the petition now invites the High Court to broaden the judicial lens to include state responsibility and systemic police reform. The court has yet to issue a formal response or set a firm timeline for hearing the petition. For now, the legal community and the public remain focused on whether the judiciary will intervene to strip the investigation of its local confines and subject the licensing and police responses to an elevated, independent level of scrutiny. The upcoming hearing is expected to define the scope of the state’s duty to provide, at minimum, a transparent inquiry into the institutional failures that the petitioner asserts led to this violent conclusion.