The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a judicial inquiry into the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The court stressed the importance of national unity and support for security forces during times of crisis.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the petition, expressing concern that such interventions could negatively impact the morale of armed forces personnel actively involved in anti-terror operations.
“This is a time when every citizen should stand united against terrorism. Please be responsible. Do not make submissions that can weaken the morale of those serving the country,” the Bench remarked.
The PIL had been filed by Jammu and Kashmir residents Fatesh Kumar Shahu, Mohammad Junaid, and Vicky Kumar. They had sought a court-monitored investigation into the April 22 terror attack near Baisaran in Pahalgam, which resulted in the deaths of 26 people, including a local civilian. The petitioners requested that the inquiry be led by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court.
In addition, the petition called for the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by the Central government. It also sought an action plan involving the Jammu and Kashmir administration, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and National Investigation Agency (NIA) to ensure the security of tourist destinations in the Union Territory.
Also Read: Supreme Court upholds right to digital access
The court, however, refused to consider the petition, asserting that retired judges were not qualified to carry out counter-terrorism investigations. “Is this how sensitive issues should be handled? Since when did retired judges become counter-terrorism investigation experts?” the Bench questioned. It subsequently allowed the lead petitioner to withdraw the plea.
During the proceedings, the counsel representing the petitioners also raised concerns about the safety of Kashmiri students studying outside Jammu and Kashmir, claiming they had faced retaliation following the Pahalgam incident.
The Bench, however, sought clarification regarding the scope of the petition, noting that it lacked focus—ranging from demands for a judicial inquiry to calls for compensation and media-related directions.
The court advised that specific grievances, such as the safety of students, should be taken to the appropriate High Court for relief. “You have the liberty to approach the High Court concerned with these specific grievances,” the Bench concluded.
Also Read: Poll body links voter rolls to birth, death records
Follow us
