A court in Jammu and Kashmir's Reasi district has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the registration of a criminal case against officials of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board. The plea was related to the tragic landslide in August that claimed the lives of 35 pilgrims.
Court Rejects Allegations of Criminal Negligence
The PIL, which was heard by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Katra Sidhant Vaid, urged police to file an FIR under sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 106 (causing death by rash or negligent acts) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioners alleged that the shrine board's Chief Executive Officer and other officials ignored adverse weather warnings and red alerts issued by the state, which they claimed amounted to criminal negligence leading to the disaster on August 26.
However, the court firmly rejected these allegations. In its ruling, the court noted that the pilgrimage had been halted from time to time when required and that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were followed to ensure public safety. The judge stated that a case of criminal negligence was not established.
"The case of criminal negligence is not made out, and no cognisable offence is prima facie made out," JMFC Sidhant Vaid said in the order.
Landslide Details and Aftermath
The devastating landslide occurred on the tracks leading to the holy shrine on August 26, resulting in the death of 35 pilgrims. Following the tragedy, the pilgrimage to the Vaishno Devi shrine was suspended for a significant period of 22 days as authorities assessed the situation and worked on safety measures.
The court emphasized that the incident was a natural disaster and held that the shrine board officials could not be held criminally liable for it. This legal perspective underscores the challenge in attributing blame for acts of nature within the framework of criminal law.
Inquiry by Lieutenant Governor to Continue
Importantly, the judge clarified that the court's observations and dismissal of the PIL would not impact the separate inquiry ordered into the mishap. Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha had announced an investigation into the accident just days after it occurred. This administrative probe is expected to continue independently, focusing on the circumstances surrounding the landslide and the overall safety protocols on the pilgrimage route.
The court's decision brings a legal conclusion to one aspect of this tragic event, affirming the official stance that it was an unforeseen natural calamity. However, it leaves the door open for the findings of the ongoing inquiry ordered by the Lieutenant Governor, which may recommend administrative or procedural changes to enhance pilgrim safety in the future.
