Supreme Court slams petitioner seeking probe in Pahalgam Attack
The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the petitioner-appearing in person in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial probe into the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, questioning the maintainability of such prayers and cautioning against filings that could demoralise the armed forces.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was about to rise for lunch when the matter was mentioned.
The PIL sought multiple directions, including the constitution of a judicial commission led by a retired Supreme Court judge to probe the attack and directions to the Centre and Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to ensure the safety of tourists and students from the region.
Justice Kant strongly rebuked the petitioner’s counsel, stating, “Please be responsible before filing this kind of PIL. You owe some duty towards the country also. This is the way you are trying to demoralise the forces at this crisis and juncture.”
The petitioner contended, “We are very much satisfied with what the government is doing. My Lords only one submission… interest of students..”
Justice Kant said, “Are you sure about the prayers that you have made? Please look at the prayers? We don’t even want to read out in the open court. Firstly you are asking a retired SC Judge to investigate so and so.. the SC judges cannot investigate, they don’t have the…they can only decide disputes. Second, Direct the respondent, to take an action plan for so and so.. Third, issue guidelines for so and so.. Fourth, award interim compensation…Fifth, Direct union government to constitute … Sixth, Direct the press council to do so…where has students come?”
On being informed that some prayers were being withdrawn, Justice Kant remarked, “You have already filed it. You have brought it into the public domain. Since when have we acquired the expertise of investigation? We only decide disputes.”
The Bench questioned the nature of the prayers, which included appointing a former Supreme Court judge to investigate the matter, directing the Union Government to implement an action plan, issuing compensation, and even seeking directions to the Press Council of India.
“These prayers are unacceptable. This is not the time for such pleas. Every citizen is standing united to fight terrorism. Please do not file petitions that demoralise our forces,” Justice Kant asserted.
When the petitioner suggested appointing an amicus curiae in the case, the Court declined and reiterated that such prayers were beyond the judicial domain.
Justice Singh noted that if the petitioner’s concern was about the welfare of students from Jammu & Kashmir studying outside the UT, they may approach the respective High Courts.
Justice Kant further observed that there was, in fact, no specific prayer regarding students in the petition.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in Court, added, “Let it not go to the High Court also.”
Ultimately, the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court limited to the issue of student welfare, if any.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Case Title: Fatesh Kumar Sahu & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Diary No. 22548-2025]