The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) case seeking repayment of Pakistan’s debt to India, which is said to be worth more than ₹1 trillion. Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla ruled that this was a question of government policy and that the government could not be served with a writ of mandamus.
Om Sehgal, the petitioner, testified in person before the court, claiming that Pakistan has frequently attacked India with funds provided by the Indian government and that numerous Indian troops have died in the neighbouring country’s battles.
As a result, Sehgal requested that the Ministry of Finance issue a directive to the Ministry of Finance to take up the subject with the Pakistani government for repayment of the debt as soon as possible.
“This money is the property of the Indian people.” Justice should win out. India gave Pakistan roughly Rs 20 crore shortly after partition, and Pakistan used that money to assault Kashmir. Thousands of people have been slain, yet our funds remain in Pakistan. It is now estimated to be worth around Rs 1 trillion. It is worth Rs 2.5 trillion in Pakistani currency. Our money pays for every bullet that our warriors take. I can’t speak for the government’s political parties, but I can ask the court for directives”Sehgal contended
Om Sehgal, a party in person, presented many papers to support his claim that India owes Pakistan roughly 300 crores in ‘Pre-partition Debt.’ He said that the total amount to be reimbursed, including interest, currently exceeds 1 trillion rupees.
Pakistan, on the other hand, is said to have not paid a single loan or interest instalment in any of the preceding 75 years. Despite this, India has not declared the loan to be non-performing. As a result, he requested that the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance take prompt action to reclaim the funds that were allegedly used to “attack India.”
The Central government’s Additional Solicitor General (ASG) told the Court that while the petitioner may be correct in his feelings, the issue is one of policy and should be left to the government. The High Court stated in its decision that the Central government is aware of the situation and that no direction can be issued because it is a matter of state policy. As a result, the petition was dismissed.