HC junks plea for court-monitored oversight in Delhi car explosion case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition seeking a court-appointed committee to supervise every stage of proceedings in the Red Fort blast case, observing that the trial had not begun and the petition was founded entirely on apprehension rather than any demonstrable violation of rights.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the plea bore the character of an academic essay rather than a writ petition, noting that the court could intervene only if a legally enforceable right was shown to be infringed.

The judges remarked that they were not sitting to review ideas or proposals, but were tasked with examining constitutional and statutory injury.

The petitioner, Dr Pankaj Pushkar, had sought a day-to-day trial and monthly status reports from the investigating agency to be placed before a court-monitored oversight body. He argued that delays in terror-related prosecutions across jurisdictions justified such extraordinary supervision and said he required an “assurance” from the court that the trial would not be prolonged.

The Bench declined to offer any such commitment, stating that the conclusion of trial could follow only after its commencement, and that the stage for intervention had not arisen. “At least do not waste the court’s time,” the Bench observed, adding that while delays in long-pending matters were a real concern, the present proceedings had not advanced to trial. After brief submissions, counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition.

During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the plea was misconceived and the petitioner was unaware about the fact that the investigation had already been transferred from the Delhi Police to the National Investigation Agency.

The petition described the attack as an assault on the “soul of India”. It argued that only continuous judicial supervision could ensure preservation of evidence, inter-agency cooperation and protection of witnesses.

The petitioner further contended that families of victims were awaiting answers regarding motive behind the attack and perpetrators and the republic’s constitutional integrity demanded an inquiry of the highest rigour.