The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, to file preliminary objections to the maintainability of NSIU President Vinod Jakhar’s petition within three weeks and directed that the matter be listed on Friday, October 16, to enable the petitioner’s counsel to produce copies of related petitions pending before the Supreme Court. The Bench said the documents were necessary to examine the overlap between the proceedings and avoid passing any order that could conflict with the apex court’s consideration.
The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma was hearing a petition filed by Vinod Jakhar, National President of the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), concerning the alleged assault of protesters during demonstrations in Delhi on October 9, 10 and 11. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, raised a preliminary objection to its maintainability under the Delhi High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.
The petition seeks action against those allegedly responsible for assaulting protesters. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that unidentified persons who were not part of the protests had entered the protest site and attacked demonstrators.
“
“My prayer is that there was a protest on 9th, 10th and 11th of October. Some people, unidentified people who were not the protesters, they entered into the protest site. Then, thereafter, they started beating. They came up with lathis. There are around, I have filed 18 of the footages. These are social media videos. Apart from that, there are hundreds of videos which are circulating all over social media. Those unidentified people, they came with the punches. And they started beating up genuine protesters.”
ASG Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, questioned the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner had not fulfilled the requirements under Rules 9(E), 9(F) and 9(G) of the Delhi High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.
ASG referred to the petitioner’s affidavit and pointed out that Vinod Jakhar had filed the petition in his individual capacity, despite being an office-bearer of an organisation.
The petitioner’s counsel agreed that the petition had been filed in Jakhar’s personal capacity and not in the name of the organisation. He argued that the relief sought was limited to action against those allegedly responsible for the attacks on protesters.
The Bench asked the petitioner to address the maintainability objection in light of the applicable rules. It subsequently permitted the ASG to file his preliminary objections on maintainability and any other issues he intended to raise within three weeks.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel also requested the preservation of CCTV footage from the relevant area, arguing that publicly available videos might not capture the entire incident and that the footage could otherwise be lost. The court, however, has not yet considered these reliefs at this stage.
The Bench sought copies of those petitions filed in the Supreme Court to avoid passing any order that might conflict with the apex court’s consideration. The counsel for the petitioner has agreed to bring to court’s record by Friday. The court consequently recorded:
“
“At the request, list for Friday, so as to enablethe Counsel for Petitioner to produce the copies of the petition which are pending before the apex court on the same line with that of the one which is under consideration.”