On Tuesday, in a petition seeking a multi-agency investigation into the activities of the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ and action against its founder, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to examine a threshold issue that often determines the fate of public interest litigation, territorial jurisdiction. The Court was called upon to consider whether it could entertain a plea filed by a Bengaluru resident raising concerns of alleged national importance, despite the dispute having no apparent connection with Uttar Pradesh. The answer would ultimately decide the future course of the proceedings.
The controversy began when a BJP worker from Bengaluru approached the Allahabad High Court alleging that Abhijeet Dipke, founder of an unregistered organisation known as the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’, was involved in activities allegedly harmful to the sovereignty and security of India. The petition sought an investigation by agencies including the NIA and ED, blocking of multiple social media accounts linked to the organisation, removal of online content, issuance of a Look-Out Circular, and initiation of extradition proceedings against Dipke, who was stated to be residing in the United States.
The petitioner also alleged that social media platforms were being used to influence and incite young people. During the hearing, however, attention shifted from the allegations themselves to a more fundamental question, whether the Allahabad High Court was the appropriate forum to entertain such a plea.
The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary found that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Bengaluru and that the writ petition disclosed no specific connection with the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court noted that the petitioner himself had repeatedly described Bengaluru as his place of residence in both the pleadings and earlier proceedings.
The Bench observed, "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 further recorded that it did not find anything in the petition specifically relating to Uttar Pradesh and therefore concluded that the matter was not maintainable before it. Once the Court expressed its view on jurisdiction, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh criminal public interest litigation before a court having competent jurisdiction.
Case Title: S.Vignesh Shishir Vs. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. - 7 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, Hon’ble Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Advocate for the Petitioner: In Person
Advocate for the Respondent: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Kuldeep Srivastava
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
