In a significant ruling at the Supreme Court, a Division Bench, led by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, has turned down a public interest litigation (PIL) that advocated for the re-establishment of a joint judicial committee between India and Pakistan. This committee was initially conceptualized to mediate and resolve disputes arising from the arrest of fishermen from both countries when they inadvertently cross territorial waters.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The hearing began with Justice Kaul seeking clarity on the petitioner’s objectives, asking pointedly,
“What do you want?”
The Counsel, representing the petitioner, presented a historical document to the Bench. This document detailed the inception of the joint judicial committee, which was constituted with four esteemed judges from the higher judiciary of India and an equivalent representation from Pakistan’s higher judiciary. This formation, however, dated back to 2008, prompting Justice Kaul to raise a pertinent question about the current diplomatic relations between the two nations:
“What is the relationship with the countries today?”
Justice Kaul further emphasized the jurisdictional boundaries of the court in such matters. He highlighted that issues of this nature predominantly fall within the domain of governmental and diplomatic channels. Such matters, he stated, cannot be addressed invoking Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, adding that
“Political matters must be sought out politically.”
In an attempt to underscore the significance and past achievements of the committee, the Counsel elaborated that under its aegis, as many as 800 fishermen, from both India and Pakistan, had been released in the past. He expressed deep concern over the prevailing situation where fishermen continue to face arrests. The Counsel fervently argued for the revival of the committee, emphasizing its previous successes. He also brought to the Bench’s attention a similar appeal made to the High Commissioner’s Office back in 2016.
However, Justice Kaul remained resolute in his stance. He reiterated the court’s limitations in intervening in such matters, stating,
“We are not going to get into this.”
He further clarified that such issues
“cannot be determined under a 32 petition.”
The Counsel’s additional argument, highlighting the plight of fishermen currently incarcerated in Pakistani jails, did not alter the Bench’s perspective. Justice Kaul, in response, posed a thought-provoking question:
“So, can we issue directions to Pakistan to release them?”
Given the multifaceted nature of the issue, intertwined with diplomatic nuances, the Bench concluded that it was not in a position to entertain the PIL.
