A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that the petition was misconceived, lacked specific facts, and appeared to be driven by political considerations rather than genuine public interest.
The petitioner had sought directions to the authorities to immediately transfer all undertrial prisoners from jails outside J&K back to prisons within the Union Territory, unless compelling reasons justified their detention outside. She had also sought the formulation of protocols to ensure regular family meetings, unrestricted lawyer-client interactions, monitoring by legal services authorities, and the constitution of an oversight committee to audit compliance.
The court noted that the petitioner had made only vague and general assertions, claiming that “many families” had approached her regarding the issue, without identifying any specific undertrial prisoner, family member, or case. The petition also failed to challenge any particular transfer order or place on record material demonstrating illegality or arbitrariness in the detention of undertrials outside J&K.
Observing that detention of undertrial prisoners outside the Union Territory is not a blanket or uniform practice, the court said such transfers are made through individual, case-specific orders issued by competent authorities depending on the facts and security considerations involved.
The Bench further noted that judicial remedies were available to any undertrial prisoner aggrieved by their transfer or place of detention, and that none of the allegedly affected persons had approached the court or availed remedies through the established legal aid framework under the Legal Services Authorities Act.
The court underlined that Public Interest Litigation is meant to protect the rights of the marginalised and vulnerable sections of society and cannot be permitted to become a tool for political gain, publicity, or partisan agendas. It observed that courts cannot be converted into platforms for electoral or political campaigns.
Taking note of the petitioner’s political position as the head of an opposition party in the Union Territory, the court said the PIL appeared to be an attempt to project herself as a crusader for a particular constituency, rather than a bona-fide effort to address a genuine public wrong.
The Bench also referred to the violent past of Jammu and Kashmir and the exceptional security circumstances prevailing in the region, noting that the petitioner herself had acknowledged the need for “unavoidable and compelling necessity” in exceptional cases, without specifying or addressing such circumstances in her petition.
The court held that a purely individual grievance relating to prison transfers cannot ordinarily form the basis of a PIL and that omnibus directions without challenging specific orders were legally unsustainable. It ruled that the petitioner lacked locus standi to espouse the cause of undertrials who had not themselves raised any grievance.
In its concluding observations, according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com (KDC), the court reiterated that preventing abuse of the PIL jurisdiction is itself a matter of significant public interest and that courts must decline interference where public interest is doubtful or compromised by extraneous considerations.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition as misconceived. (KDC)
