On November 28, the Bombay High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding alleged unsafe waterbodies in the state. The court observed that the information gathered from social media cannot be part of the pleadings in a petition. The court said that the petitioner was wasting judicial time.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor observed that arguments in a PIL cannot include information collected from social media. Petitioner cannot act with such recklessness when filing PILs.
The statement was made during the trial of a public interest litigation brought out by counsel Ajitsingh Ghorpade, who stated that around 1500 to 2000 individuals drown in Maharashtra's dangerous water bodies annually.
The petitioner appealed in his PIL that the state government should be directed to take necessary measures to safeguard waterfalls and water bodies across the state. In support of Ghorpade, attorney Manindra Pandey stated that every year, between 1500 and 2000 people drown at these dangerous waterfalls and other water bodies.
In response to a specific court question about where he received the information about the death toll, Pandey stated that he acquired it from social media posts and newspapers.
Vague PIL
In response to this, the bench stated that the PIL was vague and lacking in specifics, and it was a "sheer wastage" of time for them to consider such a request.
The court said that if someone goes on a picnic and inadvertently drowns, is it a PIL? How is the accidental drowning of a person a violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 (life and equality)?
Pandey made an appeal to the court to direct the state government to take steps ensuring the safety of people who visit such water bodies and waterfalls. However, the bench stated that most of the accidents around water bodies occur due to "reckless acts."
The Chief Justice said that what do you expect from the state government of Maharashtra? Can each and every waterfall and water body be manned and supervised by the police?
The petitioner cited incidents in which a person drowned and no rescue squad was available to save them. As a result, the body heals in two to three days.
Subsequently, the bench inquired as to whether the petitioner had personally visited any such waterfall or body of water, or if he had determined which one was riskier or more hazardous.
The petitioner was then requested by the judges to withdraw the PIL and file a "better" PIL with the necessary information. Ghorpade subsequently withdrew the PIL.
Share
Tweet
