Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
R. Sudhakar, Ali Mohd. Magrey, JJ.
Shah Faisal - Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K and Ors. - Respondents
PIL No. 21 of 2016 and MP No. 01 of 2016
Decided On : 09-11-2016
For the Respondent:B.A. Dar, A.A.G., S.A. Makroo, A.S.G.I., Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the need for genuine public interest in PILs and highlights the parameters within which PIL can be entertained, while discouraging petitions with oblique motives.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Occupation of Educational Institutions by Security Forces - Article 13, 14, 15, 21, 21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 20, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957 - The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was filed without empirical research, lacked authenticity, and was based on false and incorrect assumptions. The court emphasized the parameters within which PIL can be entertained and highlighted the need for genuine public interest, while discouraging petitions with oblique motives.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a writ petition seeking to vacate security forces from educational institutions in the Kashmir Valley, citing constitutional rights and seeking rectification of damage caused by occupation of security forces.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition lacked authenticity, was based on false assumptions, and was filed without fulfilling the requirements for a PIL. The court concluded that the petition was filed for oblique and extraneous considerations, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authenticity of the petitioner's claims, the fulfillment of requirements for a PIL, and the genuineness of the public interest involved in the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for genuine public interest in PILs, highlighted the parameters within which PIL can be entertained, and discouraged petitions with oblique motives.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court declined to impose costs on the petitioner, considering his career stage. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.
1. The present writ petition professedly filed in public interest by petitioner, being a practising Lawyer, for following relief:
(a) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondents 1 & 2 to get all security forces/personnel/battalions vacated from all educational institutions of the Kashmir valley.
(b) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondents 3, 4, & 5 to make education institutions viable by rectifying the damage, if any, caused by occupation of security forces/personnel/battalions etc.
(c) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondent No. 3 to draft and formulate a comprehensive policy by which no educational institute shall be occupied or used as temporary shelter by security forces/personnel/battalions etc. in future.
(d) A writ of Prohibition, directing respondent No. 2, 6 & 8 to prohibit security forces/personnel/battalions etc. from occupying educational institutes of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in future under whatever extra ordinary circumstances/situation.
Writ petition is primarily filed on the ground that the security forces are using the school buildings for shelter/accommodation purposes in Kashmir Valley, which has far reaching consequences on education system of the State. Petitioner is seeking direction in the name of respondents to get security forces/personnel/battalions vacated from all educational institutions and consequently pave a way for students to achieve the education, which is their Constitutional guaranteed right as provided under Article 13, 14, 15, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 20, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957. Petitioner is also seeking direction against respondents 3, 4 & 5 to make educational institutions viable by rectifying damage caused by occupation of security forces/personnel/battalions, with further direction to Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Education Department, to draft and formulate a comprehensive policy, by which no educational institute shall be occupied or used as temporary shelter by security forces/personnel/battalions etc. in future.
2. For seeking aforesaid reliefs, petitioner has supplied the material in the shape of pleadings in paragraphs 09 and 10 of the petition, which has reference to a news item carried in daily newspaper on 24th August, 2016 under the headline "BIZARRE: JK GOVT. WANTS CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS, BUT ALLOWS CENTRAL FORCES TO OCCUPYTHEM". This news items refers to occupation of S.P. Higher Secondary School, Government Higher Secondary School, Rajbagh and D.A.V. School, Jawahar Nagar. Petitioner has not supplied any material with reference to occupation of any other educational institution in the Kashmir Valley.
3. Petitioner, an Advocate, has not appeared, so as to enable the Court to ask him about compliance of requirements for filing of a PIL. Perusal of pleadings of the PIL reveal that petitioner has not undertaken and fulfilled the requirements in terms of PIL Rules.
4. The tool of public interest litigation has been devised to reach injustice wherever it is found overcoming financial, economic, geographical and locus standi barriers so as to strengthen the hand of social action groups. The petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed without any empirical research and in a totally casual manner. As a result averments have been made, which have no authenticity; without any supportive documentary evidence. In fact averments are based on false and incorrect assumption. Obviously, the only legal inference that could be raised by the Court is that the PIL has been filed not for public interest, but to gain cheap publicity which constitutes an oblique motive. The statements made in these petitions are based on newspaper cutting. Before coming to the Court through the PIL, the petitioner has not even bothered to verify the newspaper reports from any reliable source. No doubt a mere letter/news item, can be treated as a PIL but it does not arm the petitioner with a rig
