Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
"Since When Retired SC Judges Have Become Expert In Investigation?": Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Probe Into Pahalgam Terror Attack
|The Court questioned the maintainability of the PIL, warning against prayers that could demoralize national forces and emphasizing that the judiciary’s role is to adjudicate disputes, not conduct investigations.
The Supreme Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial inquiry into the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, including a plea for the appointment of a retired Supreme Court judge to lead the investigation.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh expressed strong reservations about the nature of the reliefs sought, especially the plea for appointing a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the incident, and remarked, “Since when retired Supreme Court judges have become expert in investigation?” Justice Surya Kant questioned, adding, “Tell us, since when we have acquired this expertise of investigation? We only decide disputes.”
The Bench noted that the petitioner had already brought the issue into the public domain and questioned the necessity and propriety of seeking such sweeping directions from the Court. “You have already filed it, you have already brought in public domain what you are asking before us... We are not taking on those people,” Justice Kant observed.
The petitioner had also raised concerns about the safety of students studying outside the Union Territory. However, the Bench remained unconvinced.
“We will not mention anything. Please go wherever you want to go. That's the only advice. Don't ask us to pass an order,” the Court said.
When the petitioner sought the appointment of an amicus curiae, the Court curtly replied, “Why should we appoint amicus?”
The Bench appeared particularly concerned about the numerous directions sought in the PIL. Justice Kant remarked, “Please see what the prayer you are asking for... Firstly, you are asking a retired Supreme Court just to investigate... The Supreme Court judge can't investigate. They can only decide to speak.”
He continued listing the various reliefs sought, including directions to the Union Government and Press Council of India.
The Bench expressed displeasure at the manner in which the matter was argued. “You force us to read all these things in the night and then you forget what is the prayer you have made. This is not the time,” Justice Kant noted, emphasizing the national urgency of fighting terrorism:“This is the crucial hour where each and every citizen of this country has joined hands to fight this terrorism. Don't make any prayer which can demoralize our forces. It is not acceptable to us.”
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh suggested that the petitioner could pursue the issue of students’ safety before the appropriate forum: “As far as students are concerned, you can always go to the concerned High Court,” he said.
Justice Kant added, “You are harassing...You know the time. Look at the sensitivity of the issue.”
The petitioner eventually sought to withdraw the petition. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta intervened briefly, stating, “Let it not go to the High Court also".
However, the Court clarified, “This prayer does not go to the High Court …This is for the students. Only students. Only. After arguing the case for some time, once you put the petition, one of the petitioning persons seeks and permits you to withdraw this petition, all with liberty to approach the High Court with respect to the cause of the student's commiting. It is our clarifying that we have not expressed any opinion.”
Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedies concerning students before the appropriate High Court.
Cause Title: Fatesh Kumar Sahu v. Union of India (Diary No. 22548 of 2025)