Introduction:

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, heard preliminary objections raised by the Central Government, represented by the Delhi Police, against the maintainability of a petition seeking an independent investigation into alleged assaults on protesters and members of the public during demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The alleged incidents took place on October 10 at Connaught Place and on roads adjoining Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The petition seeks the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), preservation of CCTV footage and an inquiry into the police response to the alleged violence.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma considered the objection raised by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police. The ASG questioned whether the petitioner had complied with the requirements prescribed under the Delhi High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, particularly Rules 9(f) and 9(g). According to the respondent, the petitioner had not adequately disclosed his organisational affiliation while approaching the court in the form of a public interest litigation.

The petition has been filed by Vinod Jhakar, National President of the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), the student wing of the Indian National Congress. It alleges that individuals dressed in civilian clothes assaulted peaceful demonstrators and passers-by during the protests. The petitioner has sought judicial intervention for an independent investigation into the incidents, arguing that the alleged conduct raises serious questions about the safety of citizens participating in peaceful demonstrations and the adequacy of the police response.

However, the hearing on October 13 did not result in a determination of the truth of the allegations or an order directing an independent investigation. Instead, the Bench permitted the Additional Solicitor General to file an affidavit setting out preliminary objections concerning the maintainability of the petition and any other relevant issues. The respondent was granted three weeks to do so.

The proceedings therefore raise an important procedural question concerning public interest litigation: whether a petition seeking an inquiry into alleged violations of citizens’ rights satisfies the requirements governing the filing and disclosure of information by persons approaching constitutional courts in the public interest.

The case also brings into focus the distinction between examining the credibility and maintainability of a public interest petition and deciding the substantive allegations contained in it. While the petitioner seeks an investigation into the alleged assaults, the respondent has challenged the manner in which the petition has been instituted. The High Court’s next consideration will involve examining the objections and the petitioner’s response before deciding how the proceedings should continue.

Arguments of the Parties:

Respondent’s Objection to the Maintainability of the Petition

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the disclosure requirements prescribed under the Delhi High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

During the hearing, the ASG referred to Rules 9(f) and 9(g) of the PIL Rules and drew the Bench’s attention to the procedural requirements governing the filing of public interest petitions. He specifically relied on Rule 9(f), which, as explained during the proceedings, requires disclosure of the nature of an organisation’s functions when the petitioner approaches the court as an organisation.

According to the ASG, the petitioner is not merely an individual raising concerns about an incident witnessed by members of the public. He is the National President of the NSUI, an organisation associated with the Indian National Congress. The respondent contended that this organisational connection was relevant to the court’s consideration of the petition and ought to have been disclosed in accordance with the applicable rules.

The objection was directed at the petitioner’s failure to adequately disclose his association with the organisation, notwithstanding his position as its office-holder. The ASG maintained that a petitioner could not avoid the applicable disclosure requirements simply by describing the proceedings as having been initiated in a personal capacity.

The underlying submission was that the court must be provided with sufficient information about the person instituting a public interest proceeding and, where relevant, the organisation with which that person is associated. Such information enables the court to assess the petition in accordance with the procedural safeguards governing public interest litigation.

Public interest litigation is a significant instrument for seeking judicial remedies in matters affecting the public at large. At the same time, courts have developed procedural requirements to ensure that this jurisdiction is exercised responsibly and that petitions are not used for purposes inconsistent with the public interest. The respondent’s objection sought to place the present petition within this procedural framework.

The ASG did not, at this stage of the proceedings, obtain a ruling that the allegations of assault were false or that an independent investigation was unnecessary. Rather, the respondent sought an opportunity to formally place its maintainability objections before the court through an affidavit. This would allow the Bench to consider the objection on the basis of a written submission rather than relying solely on oral arguments made during the hearing.

The respondent’s approach consequently focused on the procedural eligibility of the petition and the completeness of the disclosures made by the petitioner. The issue was whether the petition complied with the applicable rules and whether the petitioner’s organisational position had been disclosed adequately for the court to consider the matter as a public interest proceeding.

Petitioner’s Response: Plea Filed in Personal Capacity

Counsel appearing for Vinod Jhakar opposed the objection by clarifying the capacity in which the petition had been filed. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the proceedings had been instituted in an individual capacity and not on behalf of the NSUI as an organisation.

According to the petitioner, the limited nature of the relief sought was also relevant to the court’s consideration. The plea primarily sought action against unidentified individuals who allegedly began assaulting protesters and other persons present at the location. The petitioner contended that the petition was directed towards addressing the alleged acts of violence rather than advancing an organisational or political objective.

The clarification sought to distinguish the petitioner’s personal capacity as the person approaching the court from his separate position as the National President of the NSUI. The petitioner maintained that the relief sought concerned alleged wrongdoing against members of the public and that the petition should be considered in light of the incidents described in it.

The petitioner also sought liberty to amend the affidavit accompanying the petition. This request was significant because it indicated a willingness to make changes to the supporting material in response to the issues raised during the proceedings. However, the court’s order, as recorded in the available case summary, does not establish that the requested amendment was granted or that the court accepted the petitioner’s explanation as sufficient to resolve the maintainability objection.

The petitioner’s position rests on the argument that the allegations warrant judicial consideration because they concern the alleged use of violence against individuals participating in a peaceful demonstration and persons who happened to be present in the area. The petitioner seeks an investigation into the identity and conduct of the alleged assailants, along with the preservation of potentially relevant evidence.

The plea further raises concerns about the circumstances in which the alleged assaults occurred, including claims that individuals dressed in civilian clothes physically attacked demonstrators. According to the petition, the incidents were captured in video recordings made by persons present at the scene and by reporters covering the protests.

The petitioner’s request for preservation of CCTV footage and an inquiry into the police response is connected to the broader objective of establishing what occurred during the incidents and identifying those responsible, if wrongdoing is established.

Nevertheless, the petitioner’s clarification regarding personal capacity did not immediately conclude the procedural dispute. The ASG maintained that the petitioner could not avoid disclosure of his organisational association merely by asserting that the petition had been filed in an individual capacity.

Consequently, the principal controversy before the Bench remained whether the petition satisfied the requirements of the Delhi High Court PIL Rules, 2010, and whether the information furnished by the petitioner was adequate for the court to proceed with the matter.

Allegations Concerning the October 10 Incidents

The background of the petition is central to understanding the public interest involved in the proceedings. According to the plea, the alleged assaults occurred during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on October 10, 2026, at Connaught Place and on roads adjoining Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.

The petitioner claims that the persons targeted were ordinary members of the public who were unarmed, were not harming anyone and were on their way to participate in a peaceful protest. The petition alleges that groups of men dressed in civilian clothes gathered at Connaught Place and surrounded, manhandled and assaulted both demonstrators and passers-by.

The plea describes the alleged assailants as individuals who did not hold any public office and possessed no authority of law to use force against the persons present. These assertions form part of the petitioner’s account and have not been adjudicated by the High Court at the present stage.

The petition also relies on video recordings allegedly made by witnesses and news reporters. According to the description contained in the plea, the recordings show several instances of physical aggression against individuals in the crowd.

The alleged incidents include a man being held in a neck-lock by one individual while others shout at him, a young person being thrown to the ground and dragged by his clothing, and another youth being held against a railing by several men and struck on the head. The petition further refers to a person whose shirt was allegedly torn during the confrontation and an individual bent over on the road while shielding his head as others held, struck and kicked him.

Another incident described in the petition concerns a man allegedly lunging at the camera of a woman reporter who was recording the events. The petitioner relies on these accounts to emphasise the need to identify the persons involved and preserve evidence that could assist an investigation.

The plea seeks the constitution of an SIT to investigate the alleged assaults, preservation of CCTV footage that may be relevant to the events, and an inquiry into the police response. The petitioner seeks these measures to ensure that the circumstances surrounding the incidents are examined and that responsibility, if established, is appropriately determined.

The allegations raise issues concerning the protection of individuals participating in peaceful demonstrations, the safety of bystanders and journalists, and the need for an effective response when allegations of physical violence are brought to the attention of the authorities.

However, the existence of video recordings, the nature of the alleged assaults and the identity of those responsible remain matters requiring verification through appropriate procedures. The hearing before the High Court on October 13 concerned the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition rather than a final determination of these factual questions.

Court’s Judgment:

High Court Permits Preliminary Objections to Be Filed

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma recorded the objection raised by the Additional Solicitor General concerning the maintainability of the petition.

The court’s order noted that the ASG had objected to the maintainability of the plea on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the requirements of the Delhi High Court PIL Rules, 2010, particularly Rules 9(f) and 9(g).

The Bench then permitted the ASG to place the preliminary objections on affidavit. The order stated that the affidavit could address the maintainability of the petition as well as any other relevant issue. The respondent was granted three weeks to file the same.

The order records:

“ASG objects to maintainability of plea. According to him petitioner has not satisfied requirements under the PIL Rules, particularly Rule 9f and 9g. The Petitioner has sought the action against wrongdoers.We permit ASG to file preliminary objections in form of affidavit regarding maintainability of petition as well as any other issue. Let the same be done within three weeks”.

The direction provides the respondent with a formal opportunity to substantiate its objection in writing. It also ensures that the petitioner will have an opportunity to respond to the grounds raised, subject to further directions of the court.

Importantly, the order does not dismiss the petition. Nor does it record a final finding that the petitioner violated the PIL Rules or that his organisational association necessarily renders the proceedings non-maintainable. The Bench has only permitted the respondent to file its objections for consideration.

The distinction is important because a preliminary objection is not equivalent to a final determination on the merits of a case. The court has not yet decided whether the alleged assaults occurred in the manner described in the petition, whether the police response was inadequate or whether the requested SIT investigation should be ordered.

Instead, the immediate procedural question concerns whether the petition, as instituted, complies with the rules governing public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court.

Significance of Rules 9(f) and 9(g)

The respondent’s reliance on Rules 9(f) and 9(g) places the procedural requirements governing public interest litigation at the centre of the dispute.

Public interest litigation allows individuals to approach constitutional courts in appropriate cases concerning the rights and interests of persons who may be unable to effectively seek judicial relief themselves, or where the matter raises a broader question of public importance. Its purpose is to facilitate access to justice, particularly when an issue extends beyond a private dispute.

However, the accessibility of this remedy does not eliminate the need for procedural discipline. Courts must be able to examine the identity and background of petitioners, the nature of the public interest involved and the circumstances in which relief is sought. Disclosure requirements help courts assess whether a petition has been brought in good faith and whether the person approaching the court has provided the information necessary for a proper judicial examination.

In the present case, the ASG relied on the rules to argue that the petitioner’s association with the NSUI was a relevant fact that should have been disclosed. The respondent’s concern was that the petitioner’s position as the organisation’s National President could not simply be disregarded because he claimed to have filed the case in his personal capacity.

The petitioner, on the other hand, sought to establish that the case was not instituted on behalf of the organisation and that the relief requested was limited to action against the unidentified persons allegedly responsible for the assaults.

These competing submissions raise a question about the relationship between an individual’s organisational affiliation and the capacity in which a public interest petition is filed. The fact of an organisational association and the legal capacity in which a person approaches the court are related but distinct considerations. Whether the disclosures made in this particular petition satisfy the applicable rules must be determined by examining the relevant provisions and the material placed before the court.

The Bench has not yet resolved that question. By permitting an affidavit to be filed, it has provided a procedural opportunity for the respondent to explain the objection in greater detail and for the issue to be considered on an appropriate record.

It would therefore be premature to conclude that the petition is either maintainable or non-maintainable solely on the basis of the submissions recorded during this hearing.

Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Scrutiny

The proceedings also illustrate the balance that courts must maintain between facilitating access to justice and preventing misuse of the public interest litigation jurisdiction.

Over time, constitutional courts have recognised that public interest litigation can be an effective means of addressing questions involving fundamental rights, governmental accountability and the protection of vulnerable individuals. At the same time, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that this jurisdiction must be exercised with care and that courts should scrutinise the credentials of petitioners and the bona fides of proceedings.

In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Supreme Court discussed the need to preserve the credibility of public interest litigation and emphasised scrutiny of the petitioner’s credentials, the correctness of the information presented and the public interest underlying the claim. The decision is widely regarded as an important authority on safeguards against frivolous or improperly motivated public interest proceedings.

The broader principle emerging from such decisions is that courts must neither allow procedural requirements to be ignored nor permit technical objections to be treated as conclusive without examining the applicable law and the facts of the particular case.

In the present matter, the respondent’s objection concerns disclosure of the petitioner’s organisational affiliation. The petitioner contends that the case was filed in a personal capacity and seeks action against persons allegedly involved in violence. The Bench must consider these competing positions in light of the relevant PIL Rules and the pleadings placed before it.

The decision in Balwant Singh Chaufal provides general legal context for the importance of examining the bona fides and credentials of a public interest litigant. However, the available order does not indicate that the Bench relied on that judgment or any other precedent while issuing its direction on October 13. The precedent should therefore be understood as relevant background to the legal principles governing public interest litigation, not as an authority expressly applied by the court in this particular hearing.

Equally, the procedural issue should not obscure the substantive nature of the allegations. The petition seeks an investigation into alleged ssaults on protesters and members of the public. If the allegatio