The Supreme Court PIL rejection regarding tourist security has sparked fierce rebukes from the bench. The apex court on Monday turned down a petition moved in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack that left 26 dead. The court indicted the petitioner of bringing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as publicity stunts and cautioned against misuse of judicial process.
The same petitioner had previously asked for a judicial investigation into the attack. The bench rejected that plea as well, stating that it could demoralise security personnel. In this case, the court turned more stern, reprimanding the advocate for being “insensible” and irresponsible.
Court Blasts “Publicity” Motive
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh did not shy away from speaking their minds. “Who is asking you to file these PILs? Do you have responsibility?” the bench questioned advocate Vishal Tiwari.
The judges doubted his motive and called him lacking an understanding of sensibility of courts. They explained categorically, “The petitioner is indulging in one or the other presumed PILs. basically with an intent to draw publicity. Rejected.”
Petition Linked to Pahalgam Attack
The petitioner had referred to the Pahalgam attack, describing it as the first direct attack on tourists in Kashmir. He said the plea was merely concerned with enhancing security in hill regions and not driven by political intentions. But the court was not willing to accept that rationale. The apex court rejected it without serving any notice to the government.
Call for Amarnath Yatra Security Rejected
The plea also requested specific security arrangements for the July 3-August 9 Amarnath Yatra. The petitioner emphasized that several North Indian states survive on tourism. He cautioned that such attacks would seriously damage the local economy.
He also contended that Pahalgam, being a sensitive area, had no armed security despite the huge tourist influx. “Armed security should be there in out-of-way sightseeing spots,” he urged. The court was not convinced.
Judiciary Pushes Back Against PIL Overuse
The court’s observation reflects an emerging judicial anxiety: PILs being misused. The mechanism, designed to act for the public, is being inundated with self-seeking requests.
By turning down both requests back-to-back, the court made a larger point.
It will not entertain PILs that jeopardize security force morale or abuse the judicial forum for visibility.
Will Supreme Court Silence Suppress Genuine Concerns?
The larger question now hangs in the balance: Does this response discourage legitimate public concern regarding safety in conflict areas?
Tourism in Kashmir is still delicate. Amarnath Yatra attracts lakhs of pilgrims every year. Security in such areas is a valid concern. While the court aims at frivolous PILs, it also needs to make sure it doesn’t discourage genuine safety appeals in the future.
