Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL For Court Monitored Committee To Supervise Red Fort Blast Trial

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction for a Court monitored Committee to supervise all stages of the trial in the recent red fort blast case.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the trial has not even commenced in the case and that it was a good piece of essay and not a writ petition.

“It is a good piece of essay… please don't waste Court's time,” the Chief Justice said.

“The trial has not yet started and you are asking us to monitor. We understand a situation where it is pending for years but it is not started yet,” Justice Gedela remarked.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he needed “some assurance” from the Court that the trial will not be delayed, citing delay in various terrorism trials.

The Court said that the issue was only an apprehension as on date and that since the trial has not yet commenced, it cannot be assumed that it will be delayed.

“Try to understand, you are before court of law. You are not presenting a research paper. You have to distinguish between a writ petition and a research paper. We are not sitting here to entertain your suggestions. We are sitting here to entertain a writ petition if you are able to show infringement of any fundamental right or a constitutional right or a legally enforceable right…. The trial would conclude only once it commences,” CJ said.

ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for the Union Government said that the case is no longer with the Delhi Police and was transferred to the NIA. There is no mention of this in the petition, he said.

After some arguments, the petitioner counsel withdrew the petition. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, the Court said. 

The plea, filed by Dr. Pankaj Pushkar, sought a day-to-day trial in the case which is being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and that the prosecution must file monthly status reports before the judicial committee.

The blast took place on November 10. As many as 13 people were killed in the explosion which happened outside the Red Fort.

Moved by Advocate Raja Chaudhary, the PIL termed the blast as an attack upon India's sovereignty, national security and psychological integrity of the people of Delhi.

The plea stated that the victims' families remain in complete darkness as they do not know why their loved ones were killed or which “forces” orchestrated the attack.

“Despite official assurances, only judicial supervision can guarantee that evidence is preserved, agencies cooperate, witnesses are protected, and the investigation aims not only at identifying the perpetrators but also at uncovering the purpose and intent behind the attack—information the victims are constitutionally entitled to,” the plea stated.

Citing various UAPA cases, the plea added that practical realities of terrorism trials over the last three decades demonstrate that without direct constitutional court supervision, the NIA cases “routinely collapse” under the weight of delay.

The petitioner contended that terrorism prosecutions under TADA, POTA and UAPA take 12 to 27 years to conclude, leading to evidentiary disintegration, loss of witness memory, repeated adjournments, hostile witnesses, fractured chain of custody, and ultimately, retrials or large-scale acquittals.

The plea further stated that a day-to- day trial under the supervision of the High Court not only “fulfils statutory obligations” but also ensures that “truth is established swiftly, credibly, and without scope for external interference.”

“Court-Monitored Special Regime (CMSR)—ensuring day-to-day proceedings, continuous oversight, and time-bound compliance—is not an extraordinary measure but a practical constitutional necessity to prevent the present case from becoming another entry in the long list of delayed or derailed terrorism trials that have eroded public confidence in the justice system,” the plea submitted.

Title: DR. PANKAJ PUSHKAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS