Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the PIL for a Pahalgam Attack Probe?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court's recent refusal to entertain a plea for a probe into the Pahalgam terror attack raises significant questions. The court emphasized the importance of national unity against terrorism and the need for responsible petitions. The case highlights the delicate balance between legal processes and national security, reflecting the ongoing challenges in Jammu and Kashmir.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court rejected a plea for a probe into the Pahalgam attack.
- Justice Surya Kant emphasized the importance of national unity against terrorism.
- The court discouraged frivolous petitions that could undermine security forces.
- The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the PIL.
- The NIA is leading the investigation into the terror attack.
New Delhi, May 1 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to consider a petition aimed at establishing a probe committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the tragic April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, which resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant expressed strong disapproval towards the petitioner for bringing such a request before the highest court.
“Exercise caution before submitting a PIL like this. Since when have retired judges from High Courts or the Supreme Court become experts in criminal investigations? Since when have we (judges) acquired investigative expertise? Our role is to resolve disputes. Please refrain from making these requests (for an investigation supervised by a retired SC judge),” stated the Bench, which included Justice N.K. Singh.
It further emphasized, “This is a critical time when every citizen of the nation has united to combat terrorism. Do not make requests that could undermine our forces. We find this unacceptable! Consider the sensitivity of the matter.”
Noticing the court's reluctance to entertain the plea regarding the terrorist act, the petitioner unexpectedly shifted focus to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir students studying outside the union territory, expressing a desire to retract other requests within the petition.
In response, the Supreme Court remarked, “We won’t acknowledge anything. Please go wherever you wish. Do not request us to issue an order! Are you certain about the request you made in the petition? You compel us to review all these documents late at night, and then you forget what you asked for!”
Nonetheless, the Justice Kant-led Bench advised that the inquiry concerning J&K students studying outside the union territory could be pursued before the relevant High Court.
In the end, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the PIL while allowing the option to approach the appropriate High Court regarding the students’ matters (if necessary).
The PIL, filed following the devastating terrorist strike in Pahalgam, sought directives aimed at the Centre, Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory administration, CRPF, NIA, and other authorities to devise an action plan to safeguard citizens in the valley's tourist regions.
Additionally, the petition called for the Union government to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure accountability for the terror attack.
Meanwhile, the Director General (DG) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrived in Pahalgam on Thursday after the anti-terror agency assumed control of the investigation, following a directive from the Counter Terrorism and Counter Radicalisation (CTCR) division of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Point of View
It is crucial to emphasize that while accountability is vital, the Supreme Court's decision reflects a broader understanding of the national sentiment against terrorism. The focus must remain on unity and strength in the face of such adversities, ensuring that the judiciary acts responsibly and in the best interests of the nation.
NationPress
01/05/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Supreme Court's decision regarding the PIL?
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the PIL seeking a probe into the Pahalgam terror attack, emphasizing the need for responsible petitions.
What did the court say about retired judges conducting investigations?
The court criticized the notion that retired judges could serve as experts in investigations, asserting that their role is to resolve disputes.
What was the main concern raised by the Supreme Court?
The court was concerned about the potential demoralization of security forces amidst a crucial fight against terrorism.
What options were available to the PIL petitioner after the ruling?
The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the PIL but was encouraged to approach the relevant High Court regarding issues related to students from Jammu and Kashmir.
Who is leading the investigation into the Pahalgam attack?
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has taken over the investigation, with its Director General visiting Pahalgam for oversight.
