DB dismiss PIL with cost seeking seeking reopen of three Commissions
JKUT (Jammu), September-20-2021-( JNF):- A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed Public Interest Litigationseeking reopening of Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, Jammu and Kashmir Women Commission, Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission with costs of Rs 10,000/- .
In the PIL filed by Nikhil Padha, Human Rights Activist seeking who claims to be Law Student seeking reopening of Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, Jammu and Kashmir Women Commission, Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission for adjucating the pending cases. The petitioner also sought reopen J&K Human Rights Commission, J&K Women Commission, J&K Accountability Commission and J&K State Information Commission to adjudicate the pending cases. It is alleged that the aforesaid Commission/Foras have been closed down after the abrogation of Article 370 vide various Government Orders, one of which is G.O No. 1143-GAD of 2019 dated 23.10.2019 whereby J&K State Human Rights Commission was ordered to be wound up w.e.f 31.10.2019. It is also alleged that 765 cases are pending for adjudication before the J&K State Human Rights Commission, out of which, 267 cases are against military, para-military and police forces.
Division Bench after hearing petitioner in person whereas Advocate General DC Raina for the UT observed that how a law student or who has passed law recently can be recognized as an ardent human rights activist as proclaimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed any of his activity which may indicate that he is actually involved in the protection human rights of the citizens or that he is an acclaimed human rights activist despite his tender age.
DB further observed that the narration of the facts in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner is not a bonafide person but is a proxy person setup by someone to initiate this litigation in public interest. The averments made in the petition reveal that the petitioner is not really interested in the establishment of the above foras but to attack the government over the deletion of the special status granted to the J&K. He has targeted the government by alleging cases of army brutality being on the rise in the Union Territory, applicability of draconian laws, hike of the unknown gunman culture in the Union Territory ever since the abrogation of Article 370, making of the Kashmir region into a complete war zone and of significant youth unrest in the Union Territory after the scrapping of Article 370. He has also referred to the big win of Gupkar Alliance in the recent DDC elections.
The petitioner submitted that all the above facts in the manner as stated are highly critical of Government as if the petitioner is not before a legal forum but on a political platform. DB said that the petitioner by making the above averments tends to scandalize the court so as to score a political mileage.
DB observed that it is worth noting in context with the Public Interest Litigation that PIL is not a Pill for every ill and it should not be entertained if the bona fides of the persons are in doubt. It is equally settled that a PIL should not be allowed to be filed to abuse the process of law and if the pleadings are vexatious, misconceived, unfounded and untenable.
DB further said that the Apex Court in one of the cases has clearly ruled that when a political rival complains against the other political party or person it would not be a bonafide litigation at the behest of the opponent and that such petitions in public interest ought not to be entertained.
DB further observed that this apart, we also noticed the demeanor of the petitioner while presenting the case which clearly reflected that he has been setup politically to unnecessarily make out international issue of human rights violation.
DB further observed that it is pertinent to mention that for the issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner, it is essential that the petitioner should first approach the relevant competent authorities for satisfying his grievances and it is only when he fails to achieve the same, that he can approach the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction. It must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand and that it was met by a refusal by the authority concern. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that his demand as aforesaid was not considered or refused and it may be worth noting that none of the complainants of the pending cases have ever approached this Court for the adjudication of their claims pending before the J&K Human Rights Commission which has been wound up.
With these observations, Division Bench do not deem it necessary to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and thus decline to entertain this petition and dismissued the PIL with a token costs of Rs 10,000/- as the petitioner is a law graduate who has passed out recently. The costs shall be deposited with the Registrar Judicial of the High Court and be utilized for the benefit of the litigants.
DB however, expect the Government/ respondents to take respective steps in the right earnest to revive the above institutions at the earliest. JNF