The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has thrown out a public interest petition filed by former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti seeking the return of undertrial prisoners from jails outside the Union Territory, holding that the plea was less about public welfare and more about political positioning.
A bench led by the Chief Justice, along with another judge, made it clear that courtrooms are not arenas for political theatre. The judges said the extraordinary jurisdiction of public interest litigation cannot be pressed into service to build political capital or to project oneself as a champion of a particular constituency.
In sharp terms, the court observed that PILs are meant to protect genuine public causes—especially those affecting vulnerable groups—not to function as a launchpad for partisan narratives or electoral messaging. Political parties, the bench noted, have ample avenues to engage the public, but courts cannot be converted into campaign platforms.
Mufti’s petition sought directions for the immediate transfer of all undertrial prisoners from Jammu and Kashmir who are currently lodged in prisons outside the Union Territory. Alongside this, she asked for a range of additional measures, including regular family interactions, unrestricted meetings with legal counsel, oversight mechanisms, monitoring by legal aid bodies, and reimbursement of travel expenses for families.
She claimed that families of undertrial prisoners had approached her and urged her to raise the issue.
The court, however, found the petition strikingly thin on facts. It noted that Mufti did not name a single undertrial prisoner, did not disclose the nature of any case involved, and did not challenge any specific transfer order. Detention outside the Union Territory, the bench pointed out, is not a blanket policy but a result of case-by-case decisions taken by competent authorities.
The judges also reflected on the broader misuse of public interest litigation over time, remarking that what was once a powerful tool for social justice has increasingly been deployed for personal, strategic, or political ends—often divorced from its original purpose.
In this case, the court concluded that Mufti failed to establish any legal standing to speak on behalf of unnamed undertrial prisoners who themselves had not approached the court or exhausted available remedies.
Finding the petition to be misconceived and politically coloured, the High Court dismissed it outright.
