Madras HC issues notices over plea seeking probe into CJP Spokesperson Saurav Das

Chennai, Oct 30 : Madras High Court on Friday (Oct 30) issued notices to Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson and journalist Saurav Das and several Union government authorities on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation into his background, cancellation of his passport and Aadhaar card, and blocking of his social media accounts over alleged derogatory remarks against the judiciary.

 

 

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan heard the petition filed by R Ganesh Kumar, a resident of Zamin Pallavaram in Chennai. The petitioner alleged that Das had repeatedly made offensive statements against the judiciary, including the Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court judges.

 

The court issued notices to the respondents, returnable in six weeks, and adjourned the matter. It did not make any findings on the allegations raised in the petition.

 

The PIL has sought directions to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and other concerned authorities to conduct a "detailed, thorough and fair probe" into the antecedents of Das and his family members. It has also requested an inquiry into the background of his mother and biological father, who, according to the petition, reside in Puducherry.

 

 

 

The petitioner further sought cancellation of Das's passport and Aadhaar card if the investigation establishes grounds for such action. Additionally, the plea requested the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to block his accounts on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram, and prevent him from making further statements allegedly derogatory to the judiciary.

 

The respondents named in the petition include the Regional Passport Officer in Chennai, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the Union Ministries of Home Affairs, External Affairs, Law and Justice, and Electronics and Information Technology, along with grievance officers representing X and Instagram.

 

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate B Jagannath informed the court that his client had submitted a complaint to the concerned authorities on October 7 but had received no response.

 

"The manner in which he speaks about the judiciary, this is not the way to speak," Jagannath submitted before the bench. He argued that the alleged remarks required official scrutiny and that the authorities' failure to respond to the earlier complaint had compelled the petitioner to approach the High Court.