Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking FIR Over 'Forceful' Removal Of Sonam Wangchuk From Jantar Mantar Protest Site

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 22) dismissed a PIL seeking a declaration that removal of activist Sonam Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar last Saturday, while he was on hunger strike during the ongoing protest against NEET-paper leak, was illegal. 

With respect to petitioner's prayer for lodging an FIR on this incident, the court said that it was open for petitioner to take recourse to BNSS provisions.

The PIL sought that Wangchuk's removal be declared illegal; further that an FIR be lodged into the incident on July 18 and an SIT be constituted and records be preserved. 

During the hearing a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia orally observed that Wangchuk's wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, had already filed a plea on this issue, seeking shifting of her husband from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital which the court had permitted on Tuesday disposing of the plea. 

"This very incident, his wife instituted a petition. Appeal also was filed. Matter was disposed of as per their satisfaction. If you are still aggrieved, approach authorities," the bench orally said to the lawyer. 

Meanwhile the counsel said that the issue was not a private matter. The court said that the issue in the PIL was confined to a solitary incident regarding which Wangchuk's wife has taken legal recourse and the petitioner can lodge an FIR if he had grievance.

"Please go and lodge an FIR. That is one of your prayers. You have remedy under the Code," the court said. To this the counsel said that the FIR cannot be registered as the petitioner was not a victim and urged for a SIT probe. 

The court however said that SIT can be constituted only after an FIR is lodged. It said, "Under new Code if you lodge a complaint, before it is converted into FIR, some kind of inquiry is there by police. Section 173 of BNSS. Regarding prayer 4 nothing survives now in view of wife's (Angmo) appeal". 

The court said that if the Police does not lodge an FIR then petitioner had other remedies. "His wife (Angmo) has taken all recourse. Regarding FIR is concerned, if you feel cognizable offence has occurred, file a complaint," the court said. 

As the counsel urged for issuance of notice, the court in its order dictated: 

"This petition has been instituted in public interest. From perusal of averments, we find that primary grievance made in this petition surrounds the incident happened on July 18 wherein according to petitioner Sonam Wangchuk was allegedly forcibly removed from Jantar Mantar and was lodged in Safdarjung hospital...In his respect, his wife preferred a writ petition. LPA (appeal) was also filed by the wife of the said person which was disposed of on July 21. By said order, writ petition is also been disposed of.

Prayers made in this petition in relation to incident surrounding Wangchuk cannot be permitted to be agitated in view of July 21 order passed in LPA. So far as other prayers for lodging FIR and preservation of records, since FIR sought to be lodged is in relation to reportedly solitary incident, it is always open to petitioner to take recourse to provisions of BNSS. We are not inclined to entertain the petition which is hereby dismissed".

The bench however said that it had not made any observations on merits of claims by any of the parties and it would be open for petitioner to take recourse to legal remedies. 

During the hearing the counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the day Wangchuk was removed from Jantar Mantar site, all the police officials were acting like goons and they had no uniform or badge.

"They forcefully entered stage and to beat other protesters and they approached stage where Mr. Wangchuk was lying. All who tried to stop them were beaten. It was like they were taking a person who is terrorist or anti national. He was on hunger strike. It is fundamental right. If i cannot express my dissent then who will and what weapon we have except this. We are demanding for good quality education," he said. 

He submitted after Wangchuk was taken from Jantar Mantar, a DCP of the Delhi Police posted on X (previously Twitter) that the step was taken after high court's direction. On Sunday, a single judge bench of the high court had rejected Gitanjali Angmo's plea refusing to permit her husband's transfer to a private hospital.

Meanwhile opposing the PIL, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said that in the present plea no cognizable offence was made out and there cannot be registration of FIR in such a case.

"If at all any cognizable offence is committed, he (petitioner) can move court under section 154(3). As far as the person concerned Mr. Wangchuk, no complaint was filed. And this court is seized of the matter. It seems to be that this is publicity seeking petition. It Involves lot of publicity. It should be dismissed," Raju said. 

Moved by Advocate Shakeel Ahmed, the plea alleged that the Delhi Police used executive force to remove Wangchuk who was on indefinite hu ger strike. 

The plea sought FIR against all policemen who allegedly committed cognizable offences while dispersing the peaceful protest held on 18 July at Jantar Mantar, including use of unlawful force, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation or assault.

It further sought an SIT to be formed headed by a retired High Court judge and to preserve all CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, drone footage, videography etc.

The plea further prayed that it should be ensured that all persons peacefully participating in the ongoing hunger strike at Jantar Mantar are not harassed, threatened, intimidated, unlawfully detained or forcibly removed.

Wangchuk was taken from Jantar Mantar by Delhi Police on July 18, where he had been on a hunger strike in solidarity with the Cockroach Janta Party and students protesting the alleged NEET paper leak.

He was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital after the division bench, on July 16, directed the Centre to ensure daily clinical monitoring and provide medical treatment if required.

Title: Shakeel Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors

W.P.(CRL) - 2127 / 2026