Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to shift undertrial prisoners of the Union Territory presently lodged in prisons outside Jammu & Kashmir to jails within the Union Territory, along with related measures concerning family meetings and lawyer-client access. The Court declined to issue any transfer or oversight directions, holding that the PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked to convert the Court into a political platform or to gain electoral advantage. The Bench observed that the petition was founded on vague and general assertions, without material particulars or supporting documentary evidence, including any identified cases or transfer orders.

The petition was filed in purported public interest seeking directions for the immediate repatriation and transfer of all undertrial prisoners belonging to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir who were lodged in prisons outside the Union Territory. The petitioner sought that such transfers be carried out unless the jail authorities placed before the Court specific reasons demonstrating unavoidable or compelling necessity for detention outside the Union Territory.

Also Read: Personal Liability Must Be Determined Before Executing NCDRC Decree Against Builder’s Directors/Promoters: Supreme Court

In addition to repatriation, the petition sought formulation and enforcement of an access protocol providing for minimum weekly in-person family interviews, unrestricted lawyer–client interviews subject to reasonable regulations, and prohibition of denial on grounds of cost or escort. Further prayers included directions to Legal Services Authorities to monitor compliance, fixation of timelines for recording of evidence, constitution of a two-member oversight committee to audit prison records, and reimbursement of travel and accommodation expenses for family members.

The petitioner asserted that several families of undertrial prisoners had approached her requesting intervention and that continued detention outside the Union Territory adversely affected access to courts, family visits, and legal consultations. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the pleadings were vague, unsupported by particulars, and that individual detention orders were passed on case-specific considerations. No specific transfer orders or details of affected undertrials were placed on record.

The Court examined the scope and purpose of Public Interest Litigation and recorded that “public interest litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses… is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation.” It further observed that “public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another… but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest.”

The Bench noted that this extraordinary jurisdiction was evolved to protect vulnerable sections of society and recorded that “this extraordinary jurisdiction was, in fact, developed by the Constitutional Courts precisely because they encountered countless situations where judicial intervention was found necessary to protect the interests of individuals belonging to vulnerable sections of the society.”

Addressing misuse of PIL jurisdiction, the Court observed that “with the passage of time, the tool of Public Interest Litigation… has been subjected to misuse and abuse.” It recorded the Supreme Court’s caution that “the Public Interest Litigation must not devolve into ‘politics interest litigation’, ‘private interest litigation’, or ‘publicity interest litigation’.”

The Court noted that it is duty-bound to scrutinize the bona fides of the petitioner and observed that “the Courts are obligated to do more than simply ensure that such litigations are not based on vague and general allegations.” It further recorded that the Court must ascertain “the petitioner’s purpose, motive, and locus standi in filing the Public Interest Litigation.”

On the pleadings before it, the Bench recorded that the petitioner had made “general and vague averments” and that she had “miserably failed to specify the particulars of such families and of those under-trial prisoners.” The Court observed that “neither the petitioner has produced nor challenged the specific transfer orders concerning undertrial prisoners.”

The Court further observed that “detention of the undertrials in the prisons outside the home Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is not a universal practice but is based on individual orders issued by the competent authority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” It recorded that the petition was “lacking material documents and grounded in ambiguity.”

The Bench also observed that “a purely individual grievance pertaining to a prisoner’s rights cannot typically form the subject matter of Public Interest Litigation.” It noted that judicial and legal aid remedies were already available and recorded that “none of the person(s) alleged to be aggrieved… has/have approached this Court even through this institutional framework.”

On political misuse, the Court observed that “the Public Interest Litigation cannot be allowed to be utilised as an instrument for advancing partisan or political agendas or transforming the Court into a political platform.” It further recorded that “courts cannot be employed as an instrument for achieving electoral advantage.”

Finally, the Court reiterated the threshold requirement for PIL and observed that “a PIL is maintainable only upon a prima facie showing of public interest.” It recorded that where such interest is compromised, “the Court must decline to interfere, as preventing the abuse of legal process is, in itself, a matter of significant public interest.”

Also Read: Tribunal Can Remand Cases After Setting Aside Confirmation Orders Under Section 26(4) PMLA; J&K And Ladakh High Court

After examining the pleadings and material placed on record, the Court held that “the petitioner stands as a third-party stranger to the cause and has no locus standi to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. The petitioner’s request for omnibus directions is legally unsustainable, particularly as no specific transfer orders have been challenged or even brought on record for the Court’s consideration.”

“In light of what has been said and discussed above, the present petition is found to be misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents:
Mr. T. M. Shamsi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Faizan Majeed Ganaie, Advocate (for Union of India), Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel, vice Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, Senior Additional Advocate General (for UT of J&K and others), Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate

Case Title: Mehbooba Mufti v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: JKLHC-SGR:373-DB
Case Number: WP(C) PIL No. 14/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal