Delhi High Court Declines PIL Seeking ₹50 Crore Compensation From CJP For Public Inconvenience During Anti-CEC Protests
Court said similar issues were already under consideration before the Supreme Court.
The Delhi High Court today refused to entertain a PIL seeking imposition of a “community fine” on the Cockroach Janta Party which organised the recent anti-CEC protests in the national capital, to compensate members of the general public who faced disruption and inconvenience due to the demonstrations.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma observed that similar issues were already under consideration before the Supreme Court and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the apex court.
The petitioner argued that while the right to protest and freedom of expression were being discussed, the rights of ordinary citizens affected by the demonstrations also needed to be considered.
“What about the right of the general public, the ordinary citizen, whose only crime is that he has chosen to reside in Delhi, his day-to-day activity…” the petitioner submitted.
The petitioner sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, and the Ministry of Law and Justice to frame guidelines for imposing and recovering a community fine to compensate citizens who suffered inconvenience during the protests.
The petitioner argued that compensation was necessary to deter organisations from causing similar disruptions in the future. Referring to other petitions pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted that those pleas primarily sought to prevent such activities, whereas the present petition sought a sum of ₹50 crore as an interim amount, for the harm suffered by ordinary citizens.
The Court however pointed that Supreme Court was already seized of the matter. "What is scope of those proceedings? More than 50 petitions are pending before the Apex Court," ACJ Sambre told the Petitioner.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then apprised the Court that several petitions had been filed by small traders before the Supreme Court, who claimed that their livelihoods had come to a standstill due to the protests.
The petitioner sought then urged that imposing community fine will act as a deterrent to these organsiations, "otherwise nothing is stopping them; State was helpless".
The Court at this juncture orally responded, "No no, State has handled it."
The SG also disputed this claim but suggested that the petitioner could join the proceedings before the Supreme Court, adding that the plea raised a valid public law issue.
"Judicial discipline warrants that in such eventuality, this court must stay its hands away from proceedings and not pass conflicting orders," the Court then observed and disposed of the petition.
Court however clarified that it had not examined the merits of the plea and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.