Delhi High Court agrees to hear PIL seeking NIA probe into Cockroach Janta Party protests

The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the Cockroach Janta Party protests and its march to parliament on July 20. The petitioner, Satish Kumar Aggarwal, alleges that the agitation was politically driven and backed by foreign elements with the objective of destabilising the country. The court will hear the matter on Friday, July 24.

The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear a PIL petition seeking an NIA probe into the Cockroach Janta Party protests. On Thursday, Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha appeared before a Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, seeking urgent listing of the matter. The petitioner, Satish Kumar Aggarwal, alleges that the agitation was politically driven and backed by foreign elements with the objective of destabilising the country.

The PIL petition, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, a former Vice-President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, alleges that the Cockroach Janta Party protests were not a genuine student movement but part of a wider conspiracy. The petitioner claims that 'external funding' played a role in the agitation and seeks directions to the NIA or another specialised agency to investigate the protest, take over all FIRs registered by Delhi Police in connection with the incident, and identify and prosecute those allegedly responsible for violence, vandalism and obstruction of emergency services.

The court's decision to hear the PIL petition is significant as it highlights the concerns surrounding the Cockroach Janta Party protests. The petitioner's allegations of external funding and a wider conspiracy raise questions about the nature of the agitation and its impact on the country. The NIA probe sought by the petitioner could potentially shed light on these issues.

The Delhi High Court's decision to hear the PIL petition is a significant development in this matter. Practitioners should closely follow the proceedings and any subsequent developments, as they may have implications for future cases involving similar allegations of external funding and conspiracy.