PIL on Undertrial Repatriation: J&K High Court Dismisses Mehbooba Mufti’s plea, Calls It Politically Motivated

The Court held that the petition lacked specific details and appeared to serve “political rather than public interest.”

The petition sought directions for the immediate transfer of all J&K undertrials lodged in prisons across India back to the Union Territory. Mehbooba also demanded a framework ensuring weekly family visits, unrestricted lawyer-client interviews, and periodic audits by an independent oversight committee. The plea cited hardship caused to prisoners’ families, alleging that post-August 5, 2019, many detainees were lodged far from home, restricting access to justice and family contact.

Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, underscored that the judiciary must exercise “great caution” in admitting PILs, reiterating that public interest litigation should not be allowed to become “politics interest litigation.”

Citing landmark precedents such as People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), the Court emphasized that PILs were conceived to empower the marginalized, not to serve partisan or publicity-driven motives.

The Court recalled the Supreme Court’s warning in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005), noting that courts must guard against PILs filed under the “beautiful veil of public interest” but driven by “ugly private malice or political motivation.”

Mehbooba Mufti was represented by Advocate Aditya Gupta. The Union of India was represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India T.M. Shamsi along with Advocate Faizan Majeed Ganaie. The Jammu and Kashmir administration was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri, Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah, and Advocate Maha Majeed.

In its analysis, the Bench found that the petitioner had failed to identify a single undertrial prisoner or family affected, nor did she produce any transfer order showing prisoners being moved outside J&K without cause.

The Court observed that such detentions are made “based on individual orders issued by competent authorities in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.” The petition, the Court said, was “grounded in ambiguity and devoid of substantiated facts.”

In dismissing the petition, the High Court reaffirmed that judicial resources should not be wasted on “vague, politically charged, or publicity-oriented” filings, stressing that courts are already overburdened with genuine cases. The judgment echoed the Supreme Court’s stance in State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma (2022), urging lower courts to “weed out” frivolous petitions and impose costs where warranted to protect judicial integrity.