Today, On 1st May, The Supreme Court strongly criticised a petition seeking a retired judge’s probe into the Pahalgam terror attack, asking, “You want to demoralise forces?” and questioned, “Since when have judges started carrying out investigations?”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court rejected a request for a judicial inquiry into the Pahalgam terror attack, making strong observations in the process.
The case was taken up by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh.
The lawyer had requested that a retired judge should be appointed to investigate the killings that happened during the Pahalgam incident.
However, the Supreme Court was not pleased with this request. Justice Surya Kant sharply questioned the lawyer’s intention behind filing such a petition.
Justice Surya Kant told the lawyer,
“Don’t file petitions that hurt the morale of our security forces.”
He also strongly questioned the idea of judges conducting such investigations and asked,
“Since when have judges started carrying out investigations?”
The court was clearly upset and expressed serious concern about the possible negative impact of such petitions on the security forces.
Justice Surya Kant pointedly asked the lawyer,
“Is this the way you want to demoralize our forces?
After the Supreme Court questioned whether a petition for a judicial probe into the Pahalgam terror attack was intended to “demoralise the forces,” the petitioner responded by urging the court to consider the plea.
The petitioner stated that it was made on behalf of Kashmiri students in other states who might be targeted by terrorists or individuals seeking “revenge” for the deaths of 26 people, mostly civilians, in the April 22 attack in Pahalgam.
The petitioner’s concern mirrored that of the Jammu and Kashmir government; Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had previously assigned J&K ministers to coordinate with officials in other states to ensure the safety of Kashmiri students and residents.
The court, however, was reluctant to consider the plea, noting that the PIL did not specifically mention students.
The Bench Marked,
“This is the crucial hour when each and every Indian have joined hands to fight terrorism. Don’t demoralise the forces. Look at the sensitivity of the issue,”
Justice NK Singh said,
“For prayer regarding students, you can go to the high courts,”
The Bench remarked,
“Are you sure about the prayer you are making. First you ask retired Supreme Court judge to probe. They cannot investigate. Then you ask for guidelines, compensation, then directions to press council. You force us to read all these things at night and now you speak for students,”
The petitioner was ultimately allowed to withdraw the plea and given the option to approach the High Court regarding the safety of students, although Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, opposed this move, stating,
“Let this not go to the High Court.”
The petitioner subsequently withdrew the plea, which the Court permitted.
The Court also allowed the petitioner the option to approach the relevant High Court to address the issues faced by students from Jammu and Kashmir.
A separate Public Interest Litigation concerning increased security and safety measures in sensitive mountainous states is currently pending before the Court.
The recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which tragically claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.
A tragic terrorist attack took place in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, On April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of 28 people. The attackers, believed to be linked to The Resistance Front (TRF), a group associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba, targeted a group of tourists.
They separated men from women and children before shooting them at close range. The victims were chosen because they could not recite Islamic verses, and many were killed at restaurants and in wooded areas.
The attack shocked the nation and raised serious questions about security in the region. The area is popular among tourists and pilgrims, especially during the Amarnath Yatra season, which made the attack even more tragic.
Case Title: FATESH KUMAR SAHU AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 22548-2025