The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking Rs 50 crore as interim compensation from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) for alleged harassment and inconvenience caused to the public during recent protests and demonstrations in the national capital.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma observed that the Supreme Court was already examining several petitions concerning the protests and that judicial discipline required the High Court to refrain from passing potentially conflicting orders.
"The judicial discipline warrants that, in such an eventuality, this court must stay its hands away from the proceedings and should not pass conflicting orders," the bench said.
The court disposed of the petition while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Supreme Court with his grievances. It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations or the relief sought.
๐ฆ๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐
During the hearing, petitioner R K Saini, an advocate, argued that his prayers were different from those raised in the petitions pending before the Supreme Court.
The bench, however, pointed to the substantial number of proceedings already before the apex court concerning the protests and their consequences.
"What is the scope of those proceedings? More than 50 petitions are pending before the Supreme Court," the bench observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that several petitions had been filed before the Supreme Court by small traders who claimed that the demonstrations had severely affected their businesses and brought their livelihoods to a standstill.
Mehta acknowledged that the petition raised a valid public law issue but submitted that Saini could seek to participate in the proceedings already pending before the apex court and place his prayers there.
The High Court initially considered deferring the hearing until the Supreme Court passed orders in the connected matters. It subsequently decided to dispose of the petition rather than keep it pending.
๐ฃ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ
Saini had sought directions to the government to initiate proceedings against the CJP and impose a community fine to compensate members of the public allegedly affected by the demonstrations.
The petition claimed that the protests had caused widespread inconvenience and disruption to the normal lives of Delhi residents.
As an interim measure, Saini requested the court to direct the CJP to deposit Rs 50 crore with the High Court to safeguard the interests of affected residents.
The amount, according to the plea, was intended to secure compensation for alleged harassment, physical and mental suffering, inconvenience and hardship experienced by members of the public.
๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ถ๐บ
The petitioner argued that imposing a community fine would deter organisations from organising demonstrations that disrupted public life.
He further contended that without such financial consequences, there was little to prevent similar disruptions and suggested that the State had been helpless in dealing with the situation.
The bench, however, disagreed with that characterisation.
"No, no, the State has handled it," the court responded.
The judges reiterated that the appropriate course was for the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, where related issues were already under consideration.
By disposing of the PIL without examining its merits, the High Court left the questions of compensation, liability and possible action against the CJP open for consideration in the appropriate proceedings.