Madras High Court issues notice to CJP spokesperson Saurav Das, the Centre and other authorities on a PIL seeking an inquiry into his identity, nationality and family background. (IMG: X)
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Friday sought responses from journalist and Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das, the Centre and other authorities on a public interest litigation seeking an inquiry into his identity, nationality and family background, along with directions to block his social media accounts over alleged objectionable remarks against the judiciary.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notices to the respondents, making them returnable after six weeks.
The petition, filed by R Ganesh Kumar, a resident of Zamin Pallavaram in Chennai, alleges that Das has made statements against the judiciary, including the Chief Justice of India and judges of the Supreme Court, which the petitioner claims are derogatory in nature.
The plea seeks a direction to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and other concerned authorities to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the antecedents and personal details of Das, identified in the petition as Yogesh Sharma alias Saurav Das, and members of his family.
It specifically calls for verification of the particulars of his mother Seema Chhetri and biological father Bijay Sharma, who, according to the petition, reside in Puducherry.
The petitioner has further sought appropriate action concerning Das's passport and Aadhaar card, including their cancellation if an investigation establishes that he is a foreign national and warrants such action.
The litigation also seeks intervention by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block Das' accounts on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram. It additionally requests that he be restrained from making further statements allegedly derogatory to the judiciary and Supreme Court judges.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate B Jagannath, referred to documents placed on record which allegedly concerned Das's identity and addresses. The Bench examined the material and sought clarification regarding certain particulars.
The petitioner's counsel also drew the Court's attention to the statements allegedly made by Das concerning the judiciary. The Bench questioned the manner in which such remarks had been made and asked whether the petitioner had first approached the competent authorities.
Jagannath informed the Court that a representation had been submitted to the concerned authorities on October 7, 2026, but no action had followed. He argued that the absence of a response had compelled the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.
Following the preliminary hearing, the Bench issued notices to the respondents and adjourned the matter for six weeks.
The respondents include the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, the Chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the Union Ministries of Home Affairs, External Affairs, Law and Justice, and Electronics and Information Technology, besides the grievance officers of X and Instagram.
The High Court has not adjudicated upon the allegations or recorded any finding on the claims concerning Das's identity, nationality or conduct. The matter will be considered further after the responses are received.
