Vague, unsupported allegations of police harassment do not warrant extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The petitioners, residents of Village Alipur, Delhi, were the parents and sibling of Rohit Mann, who allegedly left the family home in 2022, adopted the name “Monty Mann Alipuriya,” and became involved in several criminal cases.

The petitioners publicly disowned him through a newspaper publication and severed all familial and property-related ties with him.

They alleged that, notwithstanding this disassociation, police officials repeatedly took them to different police stations and subjected them to harassment, illegal detention and interrogation solely because of their relationship with Rohit Mann.

They consequently invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking protection of their life, liberty and dignity, and directions restraining police interference.

Whether the petitioners established a specific and substantiated threat to their life, liberty or safety warranting the exercise of the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to directions for police protection and for restraining alleged harassment, illegal detention or interrogation by police officials.

Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the jurisdictional Magistrate as an efficacious alternative remedy.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which confer extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction to protect legal and fundamental rights, including life, liberty and dignity under Article 21.

It also considered Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as invoked by the petitioners.

The governing principle was that writ jurisdiction is exercised in exceptional circumstances where a clear violation of a fundamental or legal right is shown; vague, omnibus and unsupported allegations are insufficient.

Where a person alleges police-related threats or misconduct but fails to establish circumstances warranting direct writ intervention, the jurisdictional Magistrate may be approached for appropriate relief under law.

The Court found that the petitioners’ allegations of harassment, illegal detention and custodial interrogation were broad and unsupported by material particulars.

They had not identified any specific date, time, place, incident, police official or authority responsible for the alleged acts, nor had they produced supporting documents or complaints made to superior police authorities.

The pleadings also failed to demonstrate any immediate or imminent threat supported by cogent material.

Consequently, the Court could not reach a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioners’ fundamental or legal rights had been violated or that immediate writ intervention was necessary.

Since no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the ordinary statutory remedy, the Court held that the petitioners should approach the jurisdictional Magistrate if they genuinely apprehended threats or police misconduct.

The petition seeking protection, restraint against police interference and other directions was dismissed.

Any pending applications were also disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law.