The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) on Wednesday concerning the forced removal of activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar. The petition was brought by a lawyer challenging the actions taken by authorities during the protest.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted that the matter had already been addressed in a prior petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo. The Bench advised the petitioner to seek recourse through appropriate authorities if grievances persisted, particularly since the event in question was isolated.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued for broader reliefs beyond a First Information Report (FIR), requesting the formation of a committee to investigate the incident. He asserted that multiple protesters, aside from Wangchuk, were subjected to force, highlighting the public nature of the events on July 18.
However, the Court emphasized that if a crime was perceived to have been committed, the petitioner should initially pursue an FIR with law enforcement. “An SIT (Special Investigation Team) can only be constituted following the registration of an FIR,” the Court stated, adding that Wangchuk himself had not filed any complaint.
The Court also highlighted that Angmo had previously approached the judiciary, seeking to transfer Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta, addressing concerns over his forced hospitalization without consent. The Bench had allowed this transfer, aligning with Angmo’s plea for greater transparency and access.
More Read
The PIL, filed by advocate Shakeel Abbas, called for an independent judicial probe into the removal and dispersal of protesters, alleging that Delhi Police used excessive force and detained demonstrators unlawfully, violating constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The petition also sought to ensure the preservation of evidence such as CCTV and body camera footage.
While dismissing the PIL, the Court pointed out that the petitioner could explore other legal remedies regarding these broader issues. The Bench acknowledged the petitioner’s claims but indicated that the incident’s solitary nature limited the scope for Court intervention at this stage.
Separately, the Court issued notices concerning two additional PILs addressing alleged police excesses against protesters at Jantar Mantar on July 20 and 21. These cases will be reviewed in due course.
