SC Dismisses Plea for Judicial Probe into Pahalgam Terror Attack, Warns Against Demoralising Security Forces
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a strong caution to petitioners who had sought a judicial probe into the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, stating that such pleas must not undermine the morale of the armed forces, especially in times of national crisis.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that, among other demands, called for the constitution of a judicial commission led by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the killings in the Pahalgam attack.
Court Warns Against Demoralising Forces
“This is not the appropriate time. We are in a critical phase where every citizen is standing united against terrorism. Please do not make requests that could demoralise our security forces — we will not entertain such prayers,” said Justice Surya Kant at the outset of the hearing.
He reprimanded the counsel for filing a PIL that, according to him, seemed to question the role and effectiveness of the armed forces. “You have a responsibility to the nation. Filing such a petition at this juncture appears to undermine our forces’ efforts,” he said.
Judges Are Not Investigators, Says SC
Justice Kant further questioned the relevance of appointing retired judges to lead investigations. “Since when have retired High Court and Supreme Court judges become experts in investigations? Our role is to adjudicate disputes, not to conduct probes,” he stated.
In response, the counsel representing the petitioners said they were satisfied with the government’s actions and intended only to make a limited submission. After sustained criticism from the bench, the counsel agreed to withdraw the petition.
Court Refuses to Entertain Additional Requests
The petitioners then requested the court to consider at least one prayer related to the welfare of students from Jammu and Kashmir studying outside the Union Territory. However, Justice Kant advised, “It is better if you simply withdraw the petition. Don’t ask us to pass an order.”
When the counsel suggested appointing an amicus curiae to assist the court on student safety, the bench declined. Justice Kant reiterated his disapproval of the petition’s broader demands, which included orders for the government to formulate action plans, award interim compensation, and even direct the Press Council of India to act.
“You’ve forced us to read through these numerous prayers without consideration for the gravity of the current situation. This is not the time for such overreaching demands,” he remarked.
Bench Allows Withdrawal with Limited Liberty
Justice N K Singh suggested that the petitioners could consider approaching a High Court. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected, saying, “Let this not go to the High Court either.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the plea and granted them liberty to approach the High Court, but only about concerns about the safety and welfare of Kashmiri students studying outside Jammu and Kashmir.
