Jammu: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has junked a Public Interest Litigation filed by PDP president and former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti seeking blanket directions for shifting all J&K undertrial prisoners lodged in jails outside the Union Territory, holding that the plea was vague, unsupported by material facts and carried clear political undercurrents.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal pronounced the judgment on December 23, after reserving it on November 18, dismissing the petition as an omnibus claim not maintainable under PIL jurisdiction.
Mufti, through her counsel Advitya Gupta, Advocate, had sought immediate repatriation of all J&K undertrials from prisons outside the UT unless the authorities could show “unavoidable or compelling necessity” for keeping them there. She had also prayed for framing of an “access protocol” mandating minimum weekly in-person family meetings, unrestricted privileged lawyer-client interactions, monitoring by Legal Services Authorities, and even the constitution of a proposed two-member oversight committee.
The Union of India was represented by T.M. Shamsi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Faizan Majeed Ganaie, Advocate. The UT administration was represented by Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel (vice Mohsin S. Qadri, Senior AAG), while Faheem Nisar Shah appeared as Government Advocate.
However, the Bench found that the petitioner had failed to disclose even basic particulars of any undertrial or family whose cause she claimed to espouse and had not placed on record, much less challenged, any specific transfer order. The Court noted that lodging undertrials outside J&K is not a uniform or blanket practice but is based on individual, case-specific orders passed by competent authorities.
In strong observations, the Bench held that the petition, “lacking material documents and grounded in ambiguity,” sought to invoke the Court’s writ jurisdiction on incomplete and unsubstantiated facts, “clearly unveiling its political undercurrents,” particularly as the petitioner heads a prominent political party currently in opposition.
The Court further observed that the PIL appeared to have been initiated “for the explicit purpose of garnering political advantage,” reiterating that Public Interest Litigation cannot be used to advance partisan agendas or convert the judiciary into a political platform.
Importantly, the Bench underlined that undertrials have adequate judicial remedies to challenge any grievance relating to detention or transfer and that a robust legal aid framework exists to facilitate such challenges. Since none of the allegedly affected undertrials had approached the Court, even through institutional mechanisms, the Bench held that Mufti, as a political leader, lacked the standing to espouse their cause.
Holding that issues relating to a prisoner’s rights are ordinarily individual grievances not amenable to PIL and that sweeping, omnibus directions cannot be issued in the absence of specific challenged orders, the Court dismissed the petition as misconceived.
