The Delhi High Court has directed the petitioner seeking Rs 50 crore in compensation over alleged disruption caused by CJP protests in Delhi to approach the Supreme Court, where similar matters are already pending. The High Court disposed of the public interest litigation after citing the need to avoid conflicting judicial orders.
A Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Vasudev Sambare and Justice Sanjay Sharma heard the petition on Wednesday. The matter was filed by advocate Rakesh Kumar Saini, who sought interim compensation for people allegedly affected by demonstrations organised by the Cockroach Janata Party and its supporters.
The petition alleged that the demonstrations breached conditions prescribed for protests at Jantar Mantar. According to the petition, the gatherings led to traffic congestion and disrupted the daily activities of traders, commuters, office-goers and schoolchildren. The allegations relate to protests over an examination paper leak and against the Union Education Minister, as well as later demonstrations seeking the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The petitioner argued that the party had been permitted to hold a demonstration on specific issues but allegedly continued occupying the protest site beyond the permitted time. The petition also alleged that subsequent demonstrations created obstruction in central Delhi, affecting movement and access in one of the capital’s busiest administrative and commercial areas.
Apart from compensation, the plea sought action against CJP and the authorities responsible for managing the protests. It requested that a collective penalty be imposed on the party and that affected citizens be compensated for their losses. The petitioner also asked the Centre and other concerned authorities to constitute a high-level committee to invite compensation claims and determine payments based on the harm suffered.
The court was told that similar issues were already before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench about those pending proceedings. The High Court said that judicial discipline required it to avoid proceedings that could result in an order conflicting with one passed by the Supreme Court, and therefore directed the petitioner to pursue the matter before the top court.
The High Court’s order does not determine whether the allegations of traffic disruption or other public inconvenience are established, nor does it award compensation. Any assessment of loss, responsibility or penalties will depend on proceedings before the appropriate forum and on evidence regarding the alleged impact of the demonstrations.
