The High Court had earlier reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from all parties on Tuesday, March 11.
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh (India): Today, 17th March, The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities during the Mahakumbh event in Prayagraj.
ALSO READ: NGT Takes Note of High Sewage Contamination in Ganga During Mahakumbh in Prayagraj
The High Court had earlier reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from all parties on Tuesday, March 11.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, pronounced the final order today, dismissing the PIL as “baseless.”
Background
The PIL was filed by petitioners Keshar Singh, Yogendra Kumar Pandey, and Kamlesh Singh. They raised concerns about alleged mismanagement during the Mahakumbh fair. The petitioners requested the court to:
- Direct officials to provide financial assistance to the families of those who lost their lives during a stampede at the Mahakumbh.
- Instruct authorities to submit a comprehensive report detailing the mismanagement of the event and recommend necessary actions.
Advocate Vijay Chandra Srivastava, representing the petitioners, argued that there was significant “disorganization” during the Mahakumbh. He highlighted “administrative negligence” and issues such as the “contamination of the Ganga water.”
The petitioners had named multiple respondents, including:
- The state government
- DIG Mahakumbh Mela, Vaibhav Krishna
- Controller of Digital Kumbh Electronics, IPS Ajay Pal Sharma
- Swami Ram Bhadracharya of Tulsi Peeth
- Peethadhishwar Dhirendra Shastri of Bageshwar Dham
- UP Vidyut Limited
- Prayagraj Divisional Commissioner
- District Magistrate
- SSP Mela
- DCP Traffic
- Mahakumbh Mela Officer Vijay Kiran Anand
- Prayagraj Mela Authority
On behalf of the government, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goyal and Additional Chief Standing Counsel AK Goyal defended the case.
After considering all arguments and reviewing the presented facts, the bench concluded that the PIL lacked substantial evidence and termed it “baseless.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
