New Delhi, May 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial inquiry into the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, and 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 nature of the reliefs sought, particularly the plea for appointing a retired apex court judge as an investigator.
“Since when have retired Supreme Court judges become experts in investigation?” Justice Surya Kant remarked sharply, questioning the role expected of the judiciary in such matters.
“Tell us, since when have we acquired this expertise in investigation? We only decide disputes,” he added.
The Bench further observed that the petitioner had already publicised the issues raised in the PIL and questioned the need for court directions.
“You have already filed it, you have already brought into the public domain what you are asking before us… We are not taking on those people,” Justice Kant noted.
While the petitioner also raised concerns over the safety of students studying outside the Union Territory, the Court declined to entertain those concerns in the present matter. “We will not mention anything. Please go wherever you want to go. That’s the only advice. Don’t ask us to pass an order,” the Bench stated firmly.
When the petitioner requested the appointment of an amicus curiae, the Court responded curtly, “Why should we appoint an amicus?” Expressing disapproval of the sweeping directions sought, the Bench pointed to the impracticality of many prayers in the petition.
“Please see what the prayer you are asking for… Firstly, you are asking a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate… The Supreme Court judge can’t investigate. They can only decide disputes,” Justice Kant said.
He further criticised the manner in which the case was argued: “You force us to read all these things in the night and then you forget what is the prayer you have made. This is not the time.”
Stressing national unity in the face of terrorism, Justice Kant remarked, “This is the crucial hour where each and every citizen of this country has joined hands to fight terrorism. Don’t make any prayer which can demoralise our forces. It is not acceptable to us.”
Justice Kotiswar Singh suggested that the petitioner could raise the issue of student safety before the relevant High Court. “As far as students are concerned, you can always go to the concerned High Court,” he said.
Justice Kant added, “You are harassing… You know the time. Look at the sensitivity of the issue.”
The petitioner eventually sought to withdraw the PIL.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta briefly intervened, advising that the issue not be taken to the High Court.
However, the Court clarified that only the prayer concerning student safety could be pursued further. “This prayer does not go to the High Court… This is for the students. Only students,” the Court clarified.
Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court on matters related to student safety.
