The Allahabad High Court on Monday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a court-monitored investigation into the social media movement known as the “Cockroach Janta Party” (CJP) and its founder, Abhijeet Dipke, after raising questions regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the case.
A division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary expressed reservations about the maintainability of the petition before the Allahabad High Court, noting that the petitioner, Bengaluru-based BJP functionary S. Vignesh Shishir, should have first approached the Karnataka High Court.
Following the court’s observations, the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the PIL. The bench allowed the withdrawal, bringing the proceedings to a close without examining the substantive allegations raised in the petition.
Allegations in the PIL
The petition had sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) consisting of officials from multiple intelligence and investigative agencies to probe the activities of the Cockroach Janta Party, an online social media movement that has gained attention for its political commentary and digital campaigns.
According to the plea, the movement was allegedly involved in a “foreign-funded information warfare campaign” aimed at influencing public discourse and undermining public trust in constitutional institutions. The petitioner claimed that coordinated online activities linked to the movement were being used to shape narratives and create distrust among citizens.
Demand for Multi-Agency Investigation
The PIL requested that several central agencies, including the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), be directed to investigate the organization, its founder, and other individuals allegedly associated with the campaign.
The petitioner further sought a detailed inquiry into the movement’s funding sources, operational structure, and alleged international connections. The plea argued that the purported activities warranted scrutiny from national security and financial enforcement agencies.
Court Focuses on Jurisdiction
Rather than examining the merits of the allegations, the High Court focused on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The bench indicated that since the petitioner was based in Bengaluru and the matter appeared to have a stronger connection with Karnataka, the appropriate forum for seeking relief would be the Karnataka High Court.
Faced with the court’s observations, the petitioner chose not to press the matter further before the Allahabad High Court and withdrew the petition.
Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR, Flags Rising Misuse of Criminal Complaints in Family Feuds
No Findings on Merits
Importantly, the High Court did not make any findings regarding the allegations made against the Cockroach Janta Party or its founder. The withdrawal of the PIL means that the claims raised in the petition were neither examined nor adjudicated upon by the court.
The order leaves open the possibility for the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies before a court having the requisite territorial jurisdiction, should he choose to do so in the future.
Key Takeaway: The Allahabad High Court did not rule on the allegations against the Cockroach Janta Party; it only questioned whether the case was filed in the correct court. The petition was subsequently withdrawn, with the court indicating that the Karnataka High Court would be the appropriate forum for such a challenge.
Cockroach Janta Party/ Cockroach Janta Party
