The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by former J&K chief minister Mehbooba Mufti seeking the transfer of undertrials from J&K who are currently imprisoned in jails outside the Union Territory.
Citing a lack of “material documents and grounded in ambiguity”, the bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal said the petition had been initiated by the petitioner for the “explicit purpose of garnering political advantage and positioning herself as a crusader of justice for a particular demographic”.
The order also stated that the petition seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction on the basis of “incomplete and unsubstantiated facts, clearly unveiling its political undercurrents”.
In her petition, Mufti had also sought the framing and enforcement of an access protocol ensuring minimum weekly family interviews in person, unrestricted privileged lawyer-client interviews, subject to reasonable regulations and no denial on cost/escort pretexts. Additionally, through the petition, Mufti had argued for directions to be issued for providing “reasonable travel and accommodation, reimbursement for one family member per month to meet the under-trial lodged outside the UT of J&K”.
However, the bench noted in its order that the petition makes “general and vague averments” that “a lot of family members of under-trials” have requested her to take up the issues raised in the petition. “The petitioner has miserably ‘failed to specify’ the particulars of such families and of those under-trial prisoners, whose cause,” the court said, “the petitioner has claimed to project through the medium of this petition.” The order stated that the document does not even mention the nature of the cases in which the under-trial prisoners have been detained in prisons outside the UT.
“Neither the petitioner has produced nor challenged the specific transfer orders concerning undertrial prisoners from UT of J&K, currently detained outside,” the order stated.
Noting Mufti’s position as the president of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and as former chief minister of J&K, the court underscored that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) “cannot be allowed to be utilised as an instrument for advancing partisan or political agendas” or transforming the court into a political platform. “Public Interest Litigation is also not a mechanism for gaining political leverage, and the Courts cannot serve as a forum for electoral campaigns.” The bench also noted that while political parties possess manifold legitimate avenues to engage with the electorate, courts cannot be employed as an instrument for achieving electoral advantage.
Expand
Stay updated with the latest – Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
