The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought measures to safeguard people from waterfalls and water bodies in Maharashtra, citing the petition’s reliance on information sourced from social media as a key reason for its dismissal.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, was presented with the plea by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade. The petition claimed that annually, approximately 1,500 to 2,000 people lose their lives to ‘unsafe water bodies’ in Maharashtra. However, the court criticized the lack of substantiated evidence and the use of social media as a source.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked,
“Information gathered from social media cannot be part of pleadings in a PIL. You (petitioner) cannot be so irresponsible while filing PILs. You are wasting judicial time. Somebody goes for a picnic and accidentally drowns, therefore a PIL? Someone drowns in an accident, how is it a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21?”
When questioned about the source of his information, the petitioner’s lawyer, Manindra Pandey, claimed to have obtained the data from newspapers and social media posts. The court, however, found the petition to be vague and lacking precise details. The bench also noted that most of the accidents seemed to be due to reckless acts by the persons visiting such places.
The bench further questioned the feasibility of the petitioner’s expectations from the Maharashtra government, asking,
“What do you expect from the Maharashtra government? Can each and every waterfall and water body be manned by police?”
The court also inquired whether the petitioner had personally visited any such waterfall or water body to ascertain which were dangerous or unsafe.
Ultimately, the court advised the petitioner to file a better-researched PIL with proper details. Following this, the petitioner withdrew the PIL, with the court granting him the liberty to file a fresh plea.
This ruling by the Bombay High Court underscores the importance of credible and well-researched information in public interest litigations, particularly when they demand significant government intervention and resources. The court’s stance highlights the need for responsible legal advocacy and the avoidance of reliance on unverified information, especially from social media, in judicial proceedings.
