In a firm rebuke to what it termed a “misguided” public interest litigation, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday declined to entertain a PIL seeking a judicial probe into the recent Pahalgam terror attack that claimed the lives of multiple tourists in Jammu and Kashmir. The Bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, observed that such petitions, especially at a time of national grief and heightened security concerns, risk demoralising the armed forces and overstepping the constitutional role of the judiciary.
The PIL, filed by one Fatesh Sahu, had sought the appointment of a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the terror incident. The Court, however, dismissed the request outright, reiterating that the judiciary is not tasked with conducting investigations, but with adjudicating legal disputes.
“This is the crucial hour when each and every Indian has joined hands to fight terrorism. Don’t demoralise the forces. Look at the sensitivity of the issue,” the Bench remarked, taking strong exception to the tenor and timing of the PIL.
The Court further questioned the legal basis and logic of assigning investigative responsibilities to a retired judge, stating, “Since when has a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge become an expert in investigation? We only decide disputes.”
Faced with the Court’s disapproval, the petitioner’s counsel agreed to withdraw the prayer for an inquiry. However, he persisted in requesting protective directions for Kashmiri students studying outside Jammu and Kashmir, claiming they had faced backlash and threats in the wake of the attack.
The Bench, however, expressed dismay at the inconsistent reliefs being sought within the same petition—including guidelines for student protection, compensation, and even directives to the Press Council of India—stating that the fragmented and unfocused nature of the plea was not judicially sustainable.
“You force us to read all these things at night and now you speak for students,” the Court remarked sharply.
Ultimately, the plea was allowed to be withdrawn, with the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court for issues specifically concerning student safety and protection.
Notably, a separate PIL concerning enhanced security and preventive measures in sensitive hill states remains pending before the Supreme Court.
This ruling reaffirms the Court’s consistent stance on maintaining the integrity of the judicial role, especially in matters involving national security, where investigations are best left to the executive and intelligence agencies. It also reflects the Court’s emphasis on responsible advocacy in public interest matters, especially when such petitions risk political exploitation or interfere with operational realities on the ground.
