The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an independent investigation into the police action during climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike at Jantar Mantar and directions to safeguard citizens’ constitutional right to hold peaceful protests.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia is scheduled to hear the matter.
The PIL has been filed by Shakeel Abbas, a Delhi-based advocate, through Advocate Shakil Sheikh and Associates. It names the Union of India, the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (New Delhi District), the Station House Officer of Parliament Street Police Station, the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government and the Medical Superintendent of Safdarjung Hospital as respondents.
According to the petition, the case concerns the alleged violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution during the alleged suppression of a peaceful and non-violent protest led by Sonam Wangchuk and other demonstrators. The petitioner has sought judicial safeguards to protect the right to peaceful assembly and expression.
The plea states that Sonam Wangchuk and several students and citizens began an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 28, 2026, raising issues relating to the education system and alleged examination paper leaks. It claims that the protest remained peaceful until July 17 without any reported violence.
Referring to the events of July 18, the petition says that police personnel entered the protest site on the 21st day of the hunger strike. While official statements said Wangchuk was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital on medical grounds, the petition alleges that the protest site was cleared, several protesters were removed or detained against their wishes and excessive force was used while dispersing the gathering.
It further claims that protesters were harassed and prevented from continuing their demonstration.
The petitioner argues that the incident raises serious constitutional questions regarding the limits of police powers in dispersing peaceful assemblies and the need for an independent inquiry into the events of July 18. It also states that a representation-cum-complaint regarding the incident was submitted to the authorities before the PIL was filed.
The petition further contends that the alleged actions of the police had a chilling effect on democratic dissent and peaceful assembly. It submits that the PIL is not intended to espouse the personal cause of Sonam Wangchuk or any individual protester but seeks protection of constitutional freedoms available to every citizen. According to the petitioner, the reliefs sought are institutional and preventive in nature.
Among its principal prayers, the PIL seeks a direction to the Delhi Police Commissioner or another competent authority to conduct an independent, impartial and time-bound inquiry into the police action at Jantar Mantar on July 18, particularly the alleged use of force, detention of protesters and disruption of the hunger strike.
It also seeks preservation of CCTV footage, body-camera recordings, drone footage, wireless communication records, duty registers, medical records and other electronic and documentary evidence connected with the incident.
The petition further requests the High Court to direct the authorities to produce the complete records relating to the operation conducted on July 18, including deployment orders, authorisations for police action and medical communications. It also seeks appropriate action against officials found responsible after inquiry.
In addition, the PIL seeks formulation of comprehensive guidelines governing police action during peaceful demonstrations to ensure that protests are not arbitrarily disrupted and that constitutional safeguards relating to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and personal liberty are protected in future.
The petitioner has also sought interim directions restraining authorities from taking coercive action, unlawful detention, intimidation, harassment or use of excessive force against Sonam Wangchuk or any other peaceful protester solely for participating in a lawful assembly, except in accordance with due process of law.
