Bengaluru Petitioner's PIL Against 'Cockroach Janta Party' Dismissed by Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench on Forum Non Conveniens

The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench disposed of a criminal PIL filed by a Bengaluru resident seeking NIA and ED inquiry into an alleged anti-national organisation, finding no Uttar Pradesh nexus.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, disposed of Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 7 of 2026 on 2 June 2026. The petitioner, S. Vignesh Shishir, a permanent resident of Bengaluru, had filed the PIL in person against the Union of India and 21 others, seeking a wide-ranging inquiry by the National Investigation Agency and the Enforcement Directorate into an organisation called the “Cockroach Janta Party.” The bench found that the petition disclosed nothing specific to Uttar Pradesh and was not maintainable before it on the ground of forum non conveniens. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Dispute Before the Lucknow Bench

Shishir filed the criminal PIL against one Sri Abhijit Dipke, described in the petition as a resident of Pune, Maharashtra, presently residing in the United States of America, and the founder of an unregistered organisation called the Cockroach Janta Party. The petitioner alleged that this organisation is foreign and deep-state-funded, planted by anti-national elements, and is carrying out activities that could harm the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India.

The petition further alleged that several social media accounts were being operated on platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal Messenger, and Twitter to incite the youth of the nation. Shishir sought an immediate shutdown or blocking of these accounts by the Government of India, along with a deep and pervasive inquiry by the NIA and the ED. Several other ancillary prayers were also made.

The respondents included the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and 21 others. The Union was represented by Sri S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate and DSGI, assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Singh and Sri Anand Dwivedi. Ms. Shikha Singh appeared for respondent No. 7, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava for respondent No. 13, and Ms. Deepshikha, Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Sri Pankaj Khare and Ms. Isha Mittal, appeared for the State respondents.

The Jurisdictional Question

The bench's first observation on perusing the writ petition was that Shishir is a permanent resident of Bengaluru. His address in the cause title and in the affidavit was recorded as No. 4, First Main, First Cross, Nehru Nagar, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru-560020.

The bench reasoned that a resident of Bengaluru raising an issue of national importance should have first approached the Karnataka High Court. The petition, the bench found, contained nothing specific to the State of Uttar Pradesh. On that basis, the bench held that the writ petition was not maintainable before it on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Shishir attempted to counter this by submitting that certain complaints had been made by him from an address in Lucknow. The bench did not accept this as sufficient to establish jurisdiction. It recorded that on earlier occasions before this court, Shishir had himself categorically stated that he is a resident of Bengaluru and had sought preference and indulgence from the court on that very ground.

Petitioner's Response and the Court's Disposal

Once the bench communicated its view on maintainability, Shishir did not press the petition. He prayed that he be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition before a court of competent jurisdiction. The bench accepted this course.

Order

The Division Bench disposed of Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 7 of 2026 on 2 June 2026. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh criminal public interest writ petition before a court having competent jurisdiction. No directions were issued on the merits of the allegations made in the petition.