The J&K and Ladakh High Court questioned the maintainability of Mehbooba Mufti’s plea seeking repatriation of J&K undertrials from prisons outside the Union Territory, asking how she was personally affected. The matter will be heard next on November 18.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday questioned the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, seeking the return of prisoners from outside the Union Territory to local jails.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed an order on November 3, observing,
“Having argued the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for further time to prepare and argue the petition.”
During the hearing, Advocate Aditya Gupta, appearing for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti, told the Court that a large number of undertrial prisoners from Jammu and Kashmir were transferred to prisons outside the Union Territory after the abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019.
He pointed out that this move has made it very difficult for these prisoners to get proper legal consultations, meet their families, or take part effectively in their ongoing trials.
Advocate Gupta further submitted that most of these prisoners belong to economically weak families who cannot afford to travel long distances to meet them. He said that such circumstances were making the judicial process itself a punishment even before conviction.
However, the High Court questioned the very basis and maintainability of the petition filed by Mufti.
The Bench asked her counsel to clarify how she was personally affected by the issue and whether she had the legal standing to file the PIL.
The Bench remarked,
“What is the meaning of PIL? How are you aggrieved?”
When the counsel responded that the undertrials themselves were not in a position to approach the Court directly, the judges referred to previous Supreme Court judgments dealing with the rules and limits on the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations.
The Bench also observed that while the Court was open to hearing the matter, it had not yet formally entertained the petition.
The judges said that they would first have to be satisfied with the petitioner’s locus standi — that is, her legal right to bring the case before the Court — before proceeding further.
The Court remarked that it had “opened one door” to hear the matter, but the petition could not move forward unless this issue was settled.
Following these observations, the Bench adjourned the matter for further arguments on November 18.
In her petition, Mehbooba Mufti has argued that the practice of keeping undertrial prisoners from Jammu and Kashmir in jails located far away from their home state violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
She has also relied on several Supreme Court rulings and the Model Prison Manual to emphasize the constitutional and humanitarian responsibilities of the State in ensuring that prisoners are kept in conditions that allow fair access to justice and family contact.
The High Court will now hear the matter again on November 18, when the question of the PIL’s maintainability and the rights of undertrial prisoners will be further examine
Case Title:
Mehbooba Mufti vs Union of India
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mehbooba Mufti
