The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by former Chief Minister and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti. The petition sought the transfer of undertrial prisoners from Jammu and Kashmir who are currently held in jails outside the Union Territory.
Court Cites Ambiguity and Political Motives
In a significant order on Tuesday, December 24, 2024, a bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal rejected the plea. The court stated the petition was "grounded in ambiguity" and lacked material documents. It further observed that the petition was initiated for the "explicit purpose of garnering political advantage" and positioning Mufti as a crusader for justice for a specific demographic.
The bench was unequivocal in its criticism, noting that the petition sought to invoke the court's writ jurisdiction based on "incomplete and unsubstantiated facts, clearly unveiling its political undercurrents." The court underscored that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be used as a tool for advancing partisan political agendas or transforming the judiciary into a political platform.
Vague Averments and Lack of Specifics
The court's detailed order highlighted several deficiencies in the petition. It noted that Mufti had made "general and vague averments" claiming that many family members of undertrials had requested her to take up the issue. However, the court pointed out that the petitioner had "miserably failed to specify" the particulars of these families or the prisoners whose cause she was championing.
Furthermore, the order stated that the petition did not mention the nature of the cases for which the undertrials were detained in prisons outside J&K. Crucially, the petitioner had neither produced nor challenged the specific transfer orders concerning these prisoners.
What the Petition Sought
In her plea, Mehbooba Mufti had requested several reliefs from the court:
- The transfer of undertrials from J&K back to prisons within the Union Territory.
- The framing of an access protocol to ensure minimum weekly in-person family interviews and unrestricted lawyer-client meetings.
- Directions for providing reasonable travel, accommodation, and monthly reimbursement for one family member to meet the undertrial lodged outside J&K.
The court, however, found the foundation of these requests to be legally insufficient and driven by motives other than pure public interest.
Strong Message on PIL Misuse
The bench delivered a strong message on the misuse of PIL mechanisms. It stated, "Public Interest Litigation is also not a mechanism for gaining political leverage, and the Courts cannot serve as a forum for electoral campaigns." The order emphasized that while political parties have legitimate avenues to engage with the public, the courts must not be employed as an instrument for securing electoral advantage.
This ruling marks a notable judicial stance on maintaining the sanctity of PILs and preventing their exploitation for political positioning, especially in the sensitive context of Jammu and Kashmir.
