“Lacking Material Documents, Grounded In Ambiguity”: J&K&L High Court Dismisses Mehbooba Mufti's PIL On Transfer Of Undertrial Prisoners

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, observing that the petition sought sweeping and omnibus directions without placing even a single specific transfer order of any undertrial prisoner before the Court.

The petition was filed by the Ex Chief Minister seeking directions for immediate repatriation and transfer forthwith of all undertrial prisoners belonging to Jammu and Kashmir who are presently lodged in prisons outside the Union Territory, unless the authorities could demonstrate unavoidable and compelling necessity for such detention.

Alongside this principal relief, the petitioner sought a wide array of directions, including minimum weekly family interviews, unrestricted lawyer client meetings, monitoring by Legal Services Authorities through compliance reports, fixation of timelines for recording evidence, constitution of an oversight committee, and reimbursement of travel expenses for family members visiting undertrials detained outside the UT.

At the outset, the Court noticed that the petitioner claimed that several family members of undertrials had approached her requesting intervention. However, while scrutinising the pleadings, the Bench found that no particulars whatsoever were furnished. The Court noted that the petitioner had neither disclosed the identity of such families nor specified the names of undertrials, the nature of cases pending against them, or the individual orders under which they were transferred outside the UT.

In this context, the Court made a pointed observation,

“The petitioner has miserably failed to specify the particulars of such families and of those under-trial prisoners, whose cause the petitioner has claimed to project through the medium of this petition.”

The Bench emphasised that detention of undertrials outside Jammu and Kashmir is not a universal or mechanical practice, but is governed by individual, case-specific orders passed by competent authorities. Highlighting the absence of any challenge to such orders, the Court observed,

“Neither the petitioner has produced nor challenged the specific transfer orders concerning undertrial prisoners from the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, currently detained outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.”

It added,

“.. Detention of the undertrials in the prisons outside the home Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is not a universal practice but is based on individual orders issued by the competent authority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which are individual specific”.

The judgment then undertook an extensive survey of Supreme Court jurisprudence on Public Interest Litigation, reiterating that PIL is an extraordinary jurisdiction evolved to protect the rights of the marginalised and vulnerable. Quoting People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Court underscored that PIL is not adversarial litigation but a collaborative effort to vindicate constitutional and legal rights of disadvantaged sections of society.

At the same time, the Court cautioned against the growing abuse of this jurisdiction. Referring to several precedents the Bench reminded that PIL must not degenerate into political, private or publicity-driven litigation. In particularly emphatic terms, the Court recalled the Supreme Court's warning that,

“The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.”

Applying these principles to the case before it, the High Court found that the petition was founded on generalised assertions devoid of evidentiary support. The Bench categorically held,

“Lacking material documents and grounded in ambiguity, the petition seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction on the basis of incomplete and unsubstantiated facts, clearly unveiling its political undercurrents.”

Taking note of the petitioner's political position, the Court observed that she is the President of a prominent political party currently in opposition, and found that the petition bore unmistakable signs of political motivation. The Court did not mince words in cautioning against the misuse of judicial forums for political ends, observing,

“The Public Interest Litigation cannot be allowed to be utilised as an instrument for advancing partisan or political agendas or transforming the Court into a political platform.”

The Bench further clarified that courts cannot serve as a forum for electoral campaigns, and that while political parties have legitimate avenues to engage with the electorate, judicial proceedings cannot be employed to secure political leverage.

The Court also addressed the petitioner's own acknowledgment of exceptional circumstances, noting that even in her relief clause she conceded that undertrials could be detained outside the UT in cases of unavoidable and compelling necessity. On this aspect, the Bench observed that,

“The detailing of such exceptional cases has been conveniently ignored by the petitioner.”

Another crucial factor weighed by the Court was the availability of effective judicial remedies and institutional legal aid mechanisms for undertrial prisoners. The Bench noted that undertrials facing grievances regarding their detention or transfer could independently approach courts, and that the Legal Services Authorities Act provides a robust framework to ensure access to justice.

The Court observed,

“The omission on their part to avail themselves of these legal remedies is an indicative of the fact that they are not genuinely aggrieved by their retention in the prisons outside the UT of Jammu and Kashmir.”

On the question of locus standi, the Court held that where the allegedly affected individuals themselves have not approached the Court, a third-party political leader cannot assume the role of their representative through a PIL. The Bench concluded,

“Given that the affected undertrials have raised no grievance regarding their transfer to prisons outside the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner stands as a third-party stranger to the cause and has no locus standi to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.”

Accordingly, holding the petition to be misconceived, the Division Bench dismissed the PIL.

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Mr. Faizan Majeed Ganaie Advocate for R-1 Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri Sr. AAG for R- 2 to 4Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA.

Case Title: Mehbooba Mufti Vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment