The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by PDP president Mehbooba Mufti seeking the transfer of prisoners lodged outside the Union Territory back to jails in Jammu and Kashmir, with the court observing that the petition appeared aimed at garnering political mileage rather than serving a genuine public interest.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal rejected the petition in a detailed 15-page order passed on Tuesday. The court was blunt in its assessment, stating that the plea seemed designed to project the petitioner as a champion of a particular demographic for political advantage.
“It appears that the instant petition has been initiated by the petitioner for the explicit purpose of garnering political advantage and positioning herself as a crusader of justice for a particular demographic,” the bench observed.
The court underlined that it could not ignore the region’s history and the violent past experienced by residents of Jammu and Kashmir due to forces hostile to the country’s unity and integrity. Against this backdrop, the judges scrutinised the relief sought in the petition and found it lacking in clarity and substance.
The bench noted that even the petitioner acknowledged the special circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir by conceding that undertrials could be kept outside the Union Territory in cases of “unavoidable and compelling necessity.” However, the petition failed to spell out what would constitute such exceptional circumstances. According to the court, this omission weakened the very foundation of the plea.
The judges also cautioned against the misuse of public interest litigation, stressing that courts cannot be turned into political platforms. A PIL, the bench said, cannot be used to advance partisan agendas or to gain electoral leverage.
“Public Interest Litigation is also not a mechanism for gaining political leverage, and the Courts cannot serve as a forum for electoral campaigns,” the order said, adding that while political parties have legitimate ways to engage with voters, courts cannot be employed to achieve electoral advantage.
Addressing the issue of undertrial prisoners, whose cause the petitioner claimed to espouse, the court pointed out that these individuals are already facing trial before competent courts. Judicial remedies were available to them to challenge any grievance relating to their detention.
The bench observed that the failure of undertrials to approach courts for relief indicated that they were not genuinely aggrieved by being lodged in prisons outside Jammu and Kashmir.
Reiterating the settled principle governing PILs, the high court said such petitions are maintainable only when there is a clear prima facie showing of public interest. Where public interest is doubtful or tainted by extraneous considerations, courts are duty-bound to decline intervention, as preventing abuse of the legal process itself serves the public interest.
Concluding that the petition was misconceived and driven by ulterior motives, the high court dismissed the plea.
