Rajnish Sidhu vs Union Of India on 19 May, 2026

    0
    20
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Supreme Court – Daily Orders

    Rajnish Sidhu vs Union Of India on 19 May, 2026

         ITEM NO.2                               COURT NO.1                   SECTION PIL-W
    
                                       S U P R E M E C O U R T O F         I N D I A
                                               RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
    
         WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)……………….. Diary No(s).53590/2025
    
         RAJNISH SIDHU                                                          Petitioner(s)
    
    
                                                             VERSUS
    
    
         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                                  Respondent(s)
    
         IA No. 53253/2026 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING, IA
         No.4368/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 4366/2026 -
         CONDONATION   OF   DELAY  IN   REFILING/CURING   THE   DEFECTS, IA
         No.4365/2026 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON
    
         Date : 19-05-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
    
         CORAM :                 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
    
         For Petitioner(s) :                   Petitioner-in-person
    
         For Respondent(s) :
    
                                  UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                     O R D E R
    

    1. Permission to appear and argue in-person is granted.

    2. Delay condoned.

    SPONSORED

    3. The petitioner claims himself to be a social worker and a

    trader of hosiery goods in the State of Punjab. He had approached

    this Court earlier through a W.P.(Crl.) No.46/2026 seeking the

    following reliefs:

    “A) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
    writ, order or direction directing the Respondent-Union
    of India and its competent authorities to register an FIR
    Signature Not Verified
    forthwith, or in the alternative conduct a court-

    Digitally signed by
    ARJUN BISHT
    Date: 2026.05.20

    monitored preliminary inquiry leading to registration of
    15:04:04 IST
    Reason: FIR, in respect of cognizable offences disclosed on
    record, including but not limited to:

    1

    (i) Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant under
    Section 409 IPC,

    (ii) Cheating and Dishonest Inducement under Section 420
    IPC,

    (iii) Criminal Conspiracy and Common Intention under
    Sections 120B and34 IPC, arising from misrepresentation
    of the PM CARES Fund as a”private trust” while exercising
    public authority, public financing, and sovereign
    control, thereby inducing donations, CSR funds, and
    compulsory salary deductions.

    B) Issue a writ of mandamus directing investigation into
    prima facie violations of the Foreign Contribution
    (Regulation) Act
    2010, including Section 3 (prohibition
    on acceptance of foreign contribution by public
    servants). Sections 18 & 19 (maintenance of accounts and
    audit requirements), Section 35 (penalty for
    contravention),in light of blanket FCRA exemption granted
    to PMCARES Fund without statutory parliamentary sanction,
    resulting in hostile discrimination against NGOs and
    violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    C) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the investigation
    into coercive salary deductions pursuant to AIIMS
    Circular dated01.04.2020 (Annexure P-4), particularly
    affecting Scheduled Caste contractual and vulnerable
    employees, amounting to economic coercion, exploitation,
    and abuse of official position, warranting examination
    under: SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989,
    Constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 21, and 46.

    D) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the trial to be
    conducted by a Special Court as mandated under Section 14
    of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with a
    further direction for day-to-day hearings to ensure
    completion of the trial within the statutory period of 3
    months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.

    E) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to
    produce the Original Trust Deed of pm cares fund trust’

    F) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Directing the
    Respondent No. 1(Union of India) and all State
    Governments/UTs to produce on record all internal
    circulars, office memorandums, and notifications issued
    since March 2020 relating to the mandatory or ‘voluntary’
    salary deductions of all Central and State Government
    employees. Including contractual, outsourced, and PSU
    staff, for the PM CARES Fund; to facilitate the
    investigation into the illegal diversion of public funds
    into a purportedly’ Private Trust’ and to assess the

    2
    scale of economic coercion and misappropriation of wages
    in violation of the IPC and the SC/ST(Prevention of
    Atrocities) Act.”

    G) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Union of India
    And State of Punjab to provide the Petitioner with Z/Z+
    Category Security forthwith, to be exclusively deployed
    by a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) such as the
    National Security Guard (NSG) or the Central Reserve
    Police Force (CRPF), and not only the State Police.

    Further, mandating the Union of India and State of Punjab
    to provide secure residential accommodation in the Punjab
    Bhawan, New Delhi and the State Guest House in Punjab.

    H) Pass any other just and proper relief as the nature
    and circumstances of the case may require.”

    4. Another writ petition was dismissed by a three-Judge Bench of

    this Court on 10.03.2026. The instant writ petition, seeking

    virtually identical reliefs, appears to have been filed even prior

    to the institution of W.P.(Crl.) No.46/2026.

    5. Ordinarily, the instant writ petition would also meet the same

    fate as the previous one. Regardless thereto, we permit the

    petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation for the

    consideration of the respondent–Authorities.

    6. With regard to the alleged threat to the petitioner and

    consequential requirement of ‘Z+’ security, besides accommodation

    in a State Guest House, we do not find any substance in such claim.

    The petitioner may approach the appropriate local authorities with

    specific instances of the alleged threat to his life and liberty.

    We have no reason to doubt that the law enforcing agencies or the

    local authorities will examine the alleged threat perception, if

    any, and take steps, as necessary.

    3

    7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

    8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

    (ARJUN BISHT)                                (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
    ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
    
    
    
    
                                     4
    



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here