The Allahabad High Court rejected a PIL seeking CBI enquiry into Mahakumbh mismanagement and stampede while noting that the petition was foundationally based on newspaper reports as well as newspaper cuttings and the petitioners did not undertake a fact-finding exercise.

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed for the issuance of an order directing the respondents to submit a complete report of Mahakumbh regarding the irregularity, mismanagement and accident which occurred in the area so that action could be taken against the persons who were responsible for the same.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra said, “Besides the above, as the petition is solely based on newspaper reports, the same otherwise also cannot form a basis without fact finding/research on part of the petitioners, for filing a PIL.”

Advocate Amol Srivastava represented the Petitioner while AAG Manish Goyal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that during Mahakumbh which was organized from January 13, 2025, to February 26, 2025, the administration failed to discharge its duties, leading to harassment and problems faced by the devotees. Indications were made about the quality and quantity of water, the working of Pontoon Bridges, the crowd management, use of drones, mismanagement for devotees, stampede, fire incidents, and the working of Shuttle buses. A report was also sought regarding the budget meant for the event, the amount spent and the income generated.

It was also alleged that the quality and quantity of water was not sufficient across the bathing ghats, resulting in difficulties in taking holy dip by the devotees. Pontoon Bridges though erected were mostly kept closed, the crowd management was not appropriate, the drones failed to indicate excessive crowd at certain points and devotees were made to walk long distances. Thus, the stampede occurred leading to the deaths of devotees. Several fire incidents occurred during the fair period and the shuttle buses though deployed, did not cater to the needs of the devotees.

Reasoning

The Bench held that the first relief sought by the petitioners with regard to the 'submission of a complete report of Mahakumbh' regarding the irregularities and mismanagement, accident that occurred in the Mahakumbh area, fixing of the liability and taking action against persons, who were responsible for the same, was laconic since it was not even indicated as to from whom the report was being sought.

It was noticed that as far as the other reliefs pertaining to the stampede, payment of adequate compensation to the bereaved family members and a CBI report with regard to the same were concerned, not a word had been indicated in the petition indicating the basis for seeking an inquiry beyond the inquiry being conducted by the Inquiry Commission.

The Bench also took note of the fact that foundationally, the entire petition was based on newspaper reports and newspaper cuttings, running into 19 pages. Moreover, the affidavit in support of the petition indicated that the averments in the petition were true to his personal knowledge, however, nowhere in the petition, an indication was made regarding any of the petitioners having undertaken the fact-finding exercise/research in this regard.

“It has been repeatedly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a public interest litigation petition cannot be based on newspaper reports or the reports in the magazines as the facts contained in the newspaper reports are only hearsay”, the Bench said. “The prayer made seeking holding of inquiry, at this stage, when the event is already over, appears to be an exercise in futility inasmuch as in case the petitioners, were really concerned about the difficulties being faced by the devotees during 45 days long event, they should have approached the authorities and/or should have taken recourse to other remedies for obviating their grievances, which has apparently not been done”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the reliefs, as claimed in the petition, were either laconic or did not make out a case or were covered by the scope of inquiry of the Inquiry Commission as set up by the notification dated January 29, 2025. Thus, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Keshar Singh and 2 others v. State Of U.P. and 13 others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:36862-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Amol Srivastava, Sunita Sharma, Vijay Chandra Srivastava, Yadvendra Rai Pandey

Respondent:AAG Manish Goyal, ACSC A.K. Goyal, Kartikeya Saran, Krishna Agarawal

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtChief Justice Arun BhansaliJustice Kshitij Shailendra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.