The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) into an organisation called the “Cockroach Janta Party”, holding that the petition was not maintainable before it on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach a court having competent jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order in a criminal PIL filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, a Bengaluru resident, against the Union of India and several other respondents, including Abhijit Dipke, founder of the “Cockroach Janta Party”.
According to the petition, Dipke, who is stated to be a resident of Pune and presently residing in the United States, had founded an unregistered organisation called the “Cockroach Janta Party”. The petitioner alleged that the organisation was a foreign-funded entity engaged in anti-national activities capable of adversely affecting India’s sovereignty, integrity and security. The PIL sought a “deep and pervasive inquiry” by the NIA and the ED into the activities of the organisation and its founder.
The petitioner further alleged that social media accounts associated with the organisation were active across platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal and X (formerly Twitter), and were being used to influence young people and disseminate content that, according to him, was detrimental to national interests. He also sought directions for the immediate blocking of such social media accounts by the Government of India.
However, the Bench did not examine the merits of the allegations. Instead, it focused on the question of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the petitioner had disclosed his address as No. 4, First Main, First Cross, Nehru Nagar, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru, both in the cause title and in the supporting affidavit. It observed that the issues raised in the petition were national in character and were not shown to have any specific connection with the State of Uttar Pradesh.
“
“In our view, the petitioner, being a resident of Bengaluru and raising an issue that is of national importance, should have first approached the Karnataka High Court, if he so desired,” the Court observed.
The Bench further noted that nothing in the pleadings demonstrated a specific nexus with Uttar Pradesh that would justify the invocation of the Allahabad High Court’s jurisdiction. On that basis, it held that the petition was not maintainable before the Lucknow Bench on the principle of forum non conveniens.
During the hearing, the petitioner attempted to justify the filing by stating that certain complaints had been submitted from an address in Lucknow. The Court, however, recorded that the petitioner had on earlier occasions appeared before it and specifically stated that he was a resident of Bengaluru, even seeking indulgence from the Court on that basis.
Once the Court indicated that it was not inclined to entertain the matter on jurisdictional grounds, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL with liberty to approach the appropriate court. Accepting the request, the Bench disposed of the petition while granting liberty to file a fresh criminal public interest litigation before a court having competent jurisdiction.
The Court consequently refrained from expressing any opinion on the allegations made in the petition or on the reliefs sought against the organisation and its founder.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioner: In Person
Counsel for Respondents- A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Kuldeep Srivastava
