‘Trial Not Even Started’: Delhi HC Declines PIL Seeking Court-Monitored Committee to Oversee Red Fort Blast Trial

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the formation of a court-monitored committee to supervise the trial proceedings in the recent Red Fort blast case.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while hearing the matter, orally remarked that the plea did not resemble a writ petition. Instead, it appeared “more like an essay.” The Bench further observed: “You are asking us to monitor it? It has not even started.”

Filed by Advocate Raja Chaudhary, the PIL described the blast as an attack on India’s sovereignty, national security, and the psychological well-being of Delhi’s residents. The incident occurred on November 10, resulting in 13 fatalities outside the Red Fort.

The petition stated, “In this unprecedented situation, the Constitutional Court-monitored oversight mechanism becomes indispensable to ensure that the investigation is transparent, coordinated, and time-bound.”

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Gedela questioned the nature of the filing, asking: “What is this plea?”

Responding, counsel for the petitioner submitted: “We need some assurance from Your Lordships for the people who suffered in the blast.”

He added that past terror cases had taken years to conclude: “Our data shows terrorism trials are taking more than 25 years. The last Red Fort blast case took seven years, only one accused was convicted, and all others acquitted.”

The Court, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the generalised submissions: “You should come to the court with some credible data. Try to understand, you are before a court of law. We are not sitting here to entertain your ideas or suggestions. We are here to entertain a petition in which you can show that your rights have been infringed. This is a good piece of an essay, not a writ petition.”

Counsel for the petitioner then stated that the plea was “not an adversarial petition.”

Appearing for the Union Government, ASG Chetan Sharma informed the Bench that the investigation had already been transferred from the Delhi Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which the petition did not disclose. He also remarked: “The petitioner is an MLA.”

To this, the Court responded: “He has been an MLA? In that case, the duty should be even more onerous.”

After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL. The Court allowed the request and recorded: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. After arguing at some length, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

Case Title: DR. PANKAJ PUSHKAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Hearing Date: 3 December 2025