• Home
  • Current News
  • Columns
  • Judiciary
  • Know your law
  • Stories
  • International News
  • Taxation News
  • Voice of Women
  • Home
  • Current News
  • Columns
  • Judiciary
  • Know your law
  • Stories
  • International News
  • Taxation News
  • Voice of Women
Live Adalat
Facebook Twitter Instagram
  • Home
  • Current News
  • Columns
  • Judiciary
  • Know your law
  • Stories
  • International News
  • Taxation News
  • Voice of Women
Live Adalat
Home»Columns»“PIL Not a Pill For Every Ill”: Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

“PIL Not a Pill For Every Ill”: Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

0
By Kanika Bhatnagar on September 29, 2021 Columns, Current News, Stories, Top Stories
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Telegram WhatsApp

The J&K High Court dismissed a PIL seeking reopening of Human Rights Commission, Women Commission and Accountability Commission in Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court said that the plea attacked the Government over Article 370.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh observed that Public Investigation Litigation (PIL) is not a ‘pill for every ill’.

A Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal said that a PIL should not be used to scandalise the court or to garner political mileage.

“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.”

J&K High Court.


A PIL was filed by a 25-year-old law graduate who sought reopening of Jammu And Kashmir Human Rights Commission, Women Commission, Accountability Commission and State Information Commission which were closed due to the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution. The plea states that a total of 765 cases are still pending before the State Human Rights Commission, out of which 267 cases are filed against the Indian military and Police forces.

However, the plea was dismissed by the Court and the court also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, Nikhil Padha.

The Court observed that the petitioner presented himself as a human right activist and was not a bonafide person but a proxy person who was set up by someone to file a PIL.


“He proclaims himself to be a human rights activists as per the cause title of the petition as also as per the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. We fail to understand how a law student or who has passed law recently can be reorganised as an ardent human rights activists 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,” the High Court said.

According to the High Court, the petition hinted that the petitioner seems to be interested in attacking the government over the delegation of the special status granted to the J&K and not in the establishment of the Human Rights Commission. While presenting the case, it seemed that the petitioner had been set up for political purpose to gain sympathy from International Human Rights Commission.

He has targeted the Government by alleging cases of army brutality being on the rise in the Union Territory, applicability of the Draconian laws, hike of the unknown gunman culture in the UT ever since the abrogation of Article 370, making of the Kashmir region into a complex war zone and of significant youth unrest in the UT after the scrapping of Article 370.

High Court Stated.

Court Order:

Nikhil_Padha_v__Chairman_Human_Rights_Commission-1Download
Article 370 High Court J&K Human Rights Commission Jammu and Kashmir Live Adalat PIL
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Telegram WhatsApp
Previous ArticleUnlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) explained.
Next Article Redressal can be through judicial form or parliamentary debates, not by blocking highways: SC to the protesting farmers.

Related Posts

Delhi High Court quashed a petition challenging practice of offering “Cash Benefits” in exchange for votes during elections

May 17, 2022

How will civilised society survive with illegal structures appearing on roads, Delhi High Court asks objecting to Islamic mazars on public roads

May 17, 2022

Same Sex Marriage: Centre opposes plea for live streaming of proceedings in Delhi High Court

May 17, 2022

Comments are closed.

The Live Adalat welcomes articles, blog posts and other forms of content. If you are interested in writing for us, joining us please write to us at adalatlive@gmail.com
Top judgements of March
https://liveadalat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/WhatsApp-Video-2022-03-28-at-16.39.34.mp4
VIEW MORE VIDEOS
INTERESTING LEGAL FACTS
VIEW MORE VIDEOS

Participate in Live Adalat Legal Quiz

Facebook Twitter Instagram

Contact Us

Email : info@liveadalat.com

Subscribe Newsletter

© 2022 Liveadalat.com
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Terms

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below.

Lost password?