New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on counsel who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial inquiry into the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, and demanding the appointment of a retired Supreme Court judge to head the investigation.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh strongly criticised the petitioner, calling the nature of the reliefs sought “totally inappropriate and ill-conceived.”
The Court minced no words in criticising the petitioner for demanding that a retired Supreme Court judge investigate a terror attack, calling it an attempt to drag the judiciary into a domain outside its constitutional mandate.
“Since when have retired Supreme Court judges become experts in investigation? We are here to adjudicate legal disputes, not to carry out criminal probes,” Justice Kant said in a stinging observation. “Tell us, since when have we acquired the expertise to investigate such matters? This is completely unacceptable.”
The Court noted that the issues raised by the petitioner had already been brought into the public domain, making the PIL redundant.
“You’ve already publicised your allegations. What is it you expect us to do?
This is not the forum to play out political narratives or speculative concerns,” Justice Kant remarked sharply.
In an unmistakable tone of disapproval, the Court also pulled up the petitioner for including broad, impractical reliefs in the plea among them, concerns for the safety of students studying outside Jammu & Kashmir.
“This is not how PILs are to be filed. Do not treat this Court as a platform for political messaging or impractical demands,” the Bench cautioned.
When the petitioner further requested the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the Court, the Bench responded curtly, “Why should we appoint an amicus? See the nature of the prayer you’re making do you even understand what you’re asking for?”
Justice Kant also came down heavily on the manner in which the case was argued, remarking: “You force us to sit through and read all of this at night, and then you forget what exactly you have asked for.
This is neither the time nor the place for such frivolous litigation.”
The Court took strong exception to the risk of such petitions demoralising security forces, especially in the wake of a terror attack.
“This is the crucial hour where each and every citizen of this country must stand united to fight terrorism.
Do not file petitions that can undermine or demoralise the morale of our forces. It is not acceptable to us.”
Justice Kotiswar Singh advised that concerns regarding student safety could be brought before the appropriate High Court.
“As far as student-related concerns go, you can always approach the concerned High Court. That is not our concern here.” Justice Kant added, “Look at the sensitivity of the issue. You are harassing us with such petitions.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta briefly intervened, cautioning against allowing the matter to be taken to the High Court in its entirety.
The Bench clarified that only the prayer regarding the safety of students could be pursued further before the relevant High Court.
Eventually, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL.
The Court allowed the withdrawal, but made it abundantly clear that no liberty would be granted except with regard to student safety, which could be raised in the appropriate jurisdiction.
The PIL was dismissed as withdrawn, with the Court issuing a stern reminder that it will not entertain pleas that overreach judicial boundaries or potentially harm national unity and morale.
UNI
