Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by Mehbooba Mufti, president of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and former Chief Minister of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking repatriation of all undertrial prisoners belonging to J&K lodged in the various prisons across India.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while dismissing the PIL, recorded “lacking material documents and grounded in ambiguity, the petition seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction on the basis of incomplete and unsubstantiated facts, clearly unveiling its political undercurrents.”
The judges said “we cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is the president of the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party, a prominent political party in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir but in opposition at present”.
They further said, “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 noted, “We also cannot remain oblivious to the violent past, which the residents of Jammu and Kashmir have passed through, because of forces hostile to the unity and integrity of this great country. In fact, the petitioner too recognises the special circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir, when in relief part of this petition, she states that the undertrials be detained in the prisons in UT of Jammu and Kashmir, unless the jail authorities furnish reasons before this court demonstrating unavoidable and compelling necessity ‘in exceptional cases’.
“The detailing of such exceptional cases has been conveniently ignored by the petitioner,” the court said.
The Public Interest Litigation, it said, “cannot be allowed to be utilised as an instrument for advancing partisan or political agendas or transforming the court into a political platform”.
It held “a PIL is also not a mechanism for gaining political leverage, and the courts cannot serve as a forum for electoral campaigns. While political parties possess manifold legitimate avenues to engage with the electorate, courts cannot be employed as an instrument for achieving electoral advantage”.
The bench remarked, “notwithstanding the aforementioned vagueness and the ulterior motive that prompted the petitioner to approach the government and this court, it is deemed appropriate to observe that undertrials, whose cause, the petitioner claims to have projected in this petition, are facing trials before the respective courts”.
The judges said that judicial avenues were/are available to such undertrials for the redressal of any grievance concerning their detention. The omission on their part to avail themselves of these legal remedies is indicative of the fact that they are not genuinely aggrieved by their retention in the prisons outside the UT of Jammu and Kashmir.
It also held “since an institutional mechanism is already in place to protect the rights of these undertrial prisoners and none of the person(s) alleged to be aggrieved of his/their detention in prisons outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, has/have approached this court even through this institutional framework, the petitioner, in her capacity as a leader of the political party, lacks the standing to espouse their cause”.
Court also rejected the petitioner’s request for omnibus directions terming it legally unsustainable, “particularly as no specific transfer orders have been challenged or even brought on record for the court’s consideration”.
The court added that the affected undertrials have raised no grievance regarding their transfer to prisons outside UT of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner stands as a third-party stranger to the cause and has no locus standi to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
“The petitioner has miserably failed to specify the particulars of such families and of those undertrial prisoners, whose cause the petitioner has claimed to project through the medium of this petition and has not even mentioned the nature of the cases in which the undertrial prisoners have been detained in prisons out of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,” it added.
The bench concluded their judgment by noting “a PIL is maintainable only upon a prima facie showing of public interest. Where such interest is in doubt or compromised by extraneous considerations, the court must decline to interfere, as preventing the abuse of legal process is, in itself, a matter of significant public interest.”
