-
by sayum
12 October 2026 7:53 AM
"The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised in a manner that disrupts an ongoing criminal process in the absence of compelling constitutional necessity." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that the court cannot exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the registration of FIRs or constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) when a comprehensive and efficacious statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is already available.
A division bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain observed that constitutional courts must exercise self-imposed restraint to avoid supplanting established criminal procedures, noting that "monitoring of pending trial is subversion of criminal law."
Limits of Extraordinary Jurisdiction
The court emphasized that while the power under Article 226 is plenary, it is not intended to be a routine mechanism for supervising active criminal investigations. The bench underscored that the legal position regarding such intervention has been firmly settled by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which mandates that petitioners must first exhaust the multi-tiered remedies provided under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 of the CrPC.
Court Reaffirms Judicial Restraint
The bench observed that the judiciary must be cautious not to turn public interest litigation into a vehicle for pursuing matters that strictly belong within the domain of criminal law. Relying on the principles laid down in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, the court noted that frivolous or motivated petitions not only burden the legal system but also detract from the court's ability to address genuine causes.
Rejection of Wholesale Investigative Transfer
The petitioners had sought the transfer of investigations into the 2020 North-East Delhi riots to an independent agency, alleging police inaction and misconduct. The court, however, rejected this prayer, noting that the investigation had substantially progressed over the six years of the petition's pendency. The court noted that 757 criminal cases had been registered, with charge-sheets filed in 369 matters, and that wholesale transfer at this stage would inevitably prejudice ongoing trials.
No Systemic Infirmity Established
The bench clarified that while allegations of police misconduct were made, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the entire investigative machinery was institutionally compromised. The court stated that individual allegations of procedural lapses, such as non-compliance with Sections 41B or 41C of the CrPC, must be agitated in the specific criminal proceedings concerned rather than through a blanket writ petition.
Status of Compensation and Evidence
Regarding the prayer for further compensation and rehabilitation, the court observed that the government had already instituted a Claims Commissioner mechanism, which had effectively processed the majority of claims. Consequently, the court found no "systemic failure" that would warrant judicial intervention to issue general directions for compensation.
Preservation of Electronic Evidence
The court similarly declined to issue general directions for the preservation of CCTV footage and electronic records. It held that since the cases had reached the stage of trial or pending investigation before criminal courts, the responsibility for summoning and preserving evidence lies with those jurisdictional courts.
Final Dismissal of Writ Petitions
In its conclusion, the bench dismissed the batch of seven writ petitions, clarifying that the ruling does not preclude any individual from seeking legal remedies in their specific case. The court emphasized that the judiciary must maintain the sanctity of the doctrine of separation of powers and avoid encroaching upon the legislative or executive domain unless an exceptional situation demonstrates a complete breakdown of statutory machinery.
Date of Decision: 05 October 2026
