In a significant ruling underscoring judicial restraint and national sensitivity, the Supreme Court of India on May 1, 2025, refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial probe into the recent terror attack on tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, issued a firm reminder that courts are not investigative bodies and emphasized the importance of national solidarity in times of terror.
The PIL and Its Contents
The PIL, filed by advocate Fatesh Sahu, sought the constitution of a judicial commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the Pahalgam terror attack, in which several innocent civilians, including tourists, were killed. The petitioner also sought broader directions, including the issuance of guidelines for media reporting, compensation for victims, and protection for Kashmiri students studying in other states.
However, the Supreme Court bench dismissed the petition at the outset, warning the petitioner against making submissions that could potentially demoralize the armed forces engaged in counter-terror operations.
Supreme Court’s Strong Words
Justice Surya Kant, addressing the sensitivity of the matter, observed:
“This is the crucial hour when each and every Indian has joined hands to fight terrorism. Don’t demoralise the forces. Look at the sensitivity of the issue.”
The Court expressed deep concern that such PILs, though framed in the language of public interest, might unintentionally undermine the morale of the armed forces and security establishments already facing complex challenges in a sensitive region like Jammu and Kashmir.
Judiciary’s Role is to Decide, Not Investigate
The Supreme Court also reiterated its institutional limitations and clarified the fundamental role of the judiciary. When the petitioner insisted on a judicial probe led by a retired judge, Justice Surya Kant firmly responded:
“Since when have retired High Court or Supreme Court judges become experts in investigation? We only decide disputes.”
This response echoed the Court’s consistent position on judicial overreach. It served as a reminder that fact-finding and investigative responsibilities lie primarily with the executive and specialized agencies like the police, NIA, or military intelligence—not the judiciary.
Plea Withdrawn by the Petitioner
Following the Court’s critical observations, advocate Fatesh Sahu opted to withdraw his plea. The Court granted permission for withdrawal but not before pointing out inconsistencies in the petition. The bench noted that the PIL made scattered prayers, including a judicial probe, media guidelines, compensation, and student safety.
“Are you sure about the prayer you are making? First you ask for a retired Supreme Court judge to probe. Then you ask for compensation, then directions to the Press Council, and now you speak for students,” the bench remarked, expressing displeasure over the lack of clarity and focus in the plea.
Kashmiri Students’ Safety: A Real Concern?
One part of the petition that did raise legitimate concern was the safety of Kashmiri students studying outside J&K. The petitioner claimed that some students had faced violent backlash following the Pahalgam attack. While the Court refused to issue any central directive on this, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned High Courts with jurisdiction over the alleged incidents.
This opens a window for regional judicial oversight while maintaining the Supreme Court’s position on its non-interference in executive functions, particularly in volatile and ongoing counter-terrorism operations.
Supreme Court Balances Rights and National Security
This ruling is an important precedent in balancing civil liberties with national security. Over the years, the Supreme Court has heard several PILs concerning terror attacks, encounter killings, and human rights violations. However, it has consistently drawn a line when judicial intervention could potentially disrupt national security measures or lower the morale of security agencies.
In this case, the Court acknowledged that India is at a critical juncture in its fight against terrorism, especially in the Kashmir Valley. Its refusal to entertain the PIL is rooted in a larger philosophy of institutional responsibility and inter-agency trust, particularly when coordinated responses are needed across intelligence, police, military, and civil authorities.
Broader Implications: PIL Abuse or Misuse?
The case also raises broader questions about the misuse or overuse of PILs. The public interest litigation mechanism, meant to empower citizens and civil society, has often been stretched into areas traditionally reserved for the legislature or executive. While many PILs have yielded significant social benefits—like environmental protection, prisoner rights, and electoral reforms—others, especially those lacking factual rigour, have been criticized for seeking publicity or judicial activism.
The Supreme Court’s remarks in this case reinforce the need for responsibility while drafting and filing PILs. Especially in situations involving national security or communal sensitivity, any litigation must be precise, well-founded, and avoid speculative or inflammatory content.
Pending PIL on Security Measures in Hill States
Interestingly, another PIL—seeking enhanced security protocols and preventive measures in hill states prone to insurgency and terrorist attacks—is still pending before the Supreme Court. That case may potentially result in wider judicial observations on the duty of the state to protect civilians in sensitive border and tourist regions.
The distinction here is important: while the Court may consider general policy directives or administrative recommendations, it remains wary of micro-managing specific incidents or conducting post-mortem inquiries through judicial mechanisms.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the PIL regarding the Pahalgam terror attack underlines its commitment to constitutional boundaries, national security, and the proper use of judicial time and authority. While acknowledging the petitioner’s concern for Kashmiri students, the Court reminded all stakeholders—lawyers, citizens, and institutions—that unity and responsibility are vital in the fight against terror.
As India grapples with terrorism and internal security challenges, the judiciary’s restraint and deference to executive functioning become crucial pillars in upholding the rule of law and protecting national integrity.
