Srinagar, Dec 24: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Peoples Democratic Party president and former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti seeking the repatriation of undertrial prisoners from outside jails to prisons within the Union Territory, observing that the plea appeared to be politically motivated.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable only when a genuine public interest is clearly established. The court said that when such interest is doubtful or influenced by extraneous considerations, judicial intervention must be declined to prevent misuse of the legal process.
The Bench observed that the petition had been filed with the apparent objective of gaining political mileage and portraying the petitioner as a champion of a particular section of society. It stated that courts cannot be used as platforms for advancing political or partisan agendas, nor can PILs serve as tools for electoral positioning.
“The PIL jurisdiction cannot be converted into an instrument for political campaigning or securing political advantage,” the court said, adding that political parties have several legitimate forums to engage with the public, but the judiciary cannot be one of them.
Mufti had sought directions for the immediate transfer of all undertrial prisoners belonging to Jammu and Kashmir who are lodged in jails outside the Union Territory, unless authorities could demonstrate compelling reasons for keeping them outside.
The court referred to existing Supreme Court guidelines on prison administration, including issues related to overcrowding, healthcare, and basic amenities, and noted that undertrial prisoners aggrieved by their transfer have the right to approach the court individually.
It further held that individual grievances cannot ordinarily be raised through a PIL. The Bench noted that no specific transfer orders had been challenged in the petition and that none of the affected undertrials had raised any complaint regarding their placement outside the UT.
In view of this, the court ruled that the petitioner had no locus standi, describing her as a third-party stranger to the issue, and termed the request for blanket directions as legally unsustainable.
