The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed Mehbooba Mufti’s PIL seeking transfer of prisoners from outside jails to J-K, terming it politically driven. The court said PILs cannot be used to gain political mileage or turn courts into platforms for electoral advantage.
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti, in which she had sought the transfer of prisoners lodged in jails outside the Union Territory back to prisons in Jammu and Kashmir.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed a detailed 15-page order on Tuesday, clearly stating that the petition did not appear to be a genuine public interest case.
ALSO READ: J&K High Court questions Mehbooba Mufti’s PIL on bringing back prisoners from outside UT
The court observed that the PIL seemed to have been filed with political motives rather than legal or humanitarian concerns.
The bench made strong remarks while dismissing the petition, saying,
“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,”
indicating that the court found the intent behind the PIL questionable.
The High Court also took note of the unique and sensitive history of Jammu and Kashmir. It said the judiciary cannot ignore the region’s violent past, which has deeply affected its people due to forces that have been hostile to the unity and integrity of the country.
According to the bench, these special circumstances play an important role in decisions related to prisoners and security.
ALSO READ: Hijab Controversy Explained: Why SCBA Condemned a Sitting Chief Minister
The court further pointed out that even the petitioner herself had acknowledged the exceptional situation in Jammu and Kashmir while making her request.
Referring to the relief sought in the PIL, the bench noted that Mehbooba Mufti had argued that undertrial prisoners should be kept in jails within the Union Territory unless jail authorities could justify their detention outside the region.
On this aspect, the court observed,
“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 U.T. 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 bench said.
The judges made it clear that PILs cannot be misused for political purposes. They stressed that the judiciary must not be dragged into political debates or campaigns under the garb of public interest litigation.
The bench stated,
“The PIL cannot be allowed to be utilised as an instrument for advancing partisan or political agendas or transforming the court into a political platform.”
Reiterating this position, the court further remarked,
“Public Interest Litigation is also not a mechanism for gaining political leverage, and the Courts cannot serve as a forum for electoral campaigns.”
The judges emphasised that while political parties have many legitimate ways to reach out to people and raise issues, the courts are not meant to be used for political gain.
Concluding its order, the bench added,
“While political parties possess manifold legitimate avenues to engage with the electorate, courts cannot be employed as an instrument for achieving electoral advantage,”
and dismissed the PIL, firmly drawing a line between judicial processes and political objectives.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mehbooba Mufti
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
