The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a criminal Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a high-level federal probe into the alleged “anti-national activities” of an unregistered group called the “Cockroach Janta Party.”
A vacation bench comprising Justices Shekhar B Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary disposed of the petition after raising critical questions regarding its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner subsequently chose to withdraw the plea, seeking liberty to approach a competent court.
Serious Allegations of Foreign Funding and Youth Incitement
The legal battle was initiated by petitioner S Vignesh Shishir, who filed the PIL targeting Abhijeet Dipke, a Pune native currently residing in the United States. According to the petition, Dipke is the founder of the unregistered “Cockroach Janta Party,” which Shishir claimed is actively involved in anti-national operations fueled by foreign funding.
In his plea, Shishir sought a comprehensive, joint investigation into the group’s operations by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Furthermore, the petitioner alleged that the group was actively using a vast network of social media handles across platforms—including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X (formerly Twitter)—to influence and incite India’s youth. The PIL had urged the court to direct the Central Government to immediately block or shut down these accounts.
Why the High Court Refused to Hear the Case
Despite the gravity of the allegations, the bench quickly shifted focus to the maintainability of the petition under its current jurisdiction.
During the hearing, the court noted that Shishir had identified himself as a permanent resident of Bengaluru in both the petition and his accompanying affidavit. Justices Saraf and Chaudhary observed that while the matter raised issues of national importance, the petitioner should have approached the Karnataka High Court first.
Crucially, the bench pointed out that the petition failed to disclose any specific cause of action that arose within the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Case Withdrawn to Re-file
Faced with the court’s indication that the petition was not maintainable before the Lucknow bench on the grounds of forum non conveniens (an inconvenient forum), the petitioner’s counsel requested permission to withdraw the plea.
The petitioner sought the court’s liberty to approach a judicial body with the proper competent jurisdiction. The vacation bench allowed the request, officially disposing of the PIL while granting Shishir the liberty to file a fresh petition before the appropriate court.
