In a sharply worded intervention, the Supreme Court on Thursday drew a hard line between alleged crimes and collateral cruelty, spotlighting a disturbing fallout: children bullied in school after their father, an NDPS accused, was falsely linked to the recent Pahalgam terror attack.
The courtroom air was tense as Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N Kotiswar Singh made their stance clear: “No family member of any person—whether guilty or not—should suffer due to it.” The message was direct, cutting through the legal fog with rare moral clarity.
This came during a bail hearing for a man accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. His counsel, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, shared that his client’s children were being harassed, labeled “terrorist’s children,” and forced to leave school after speculative courtroom remarks linked the case to the Pahalgam tragedy that left 26 dead.
The link? An assertion by the National Investigation Agency, echoed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, that proceeds from the alleged drug trafficking might have found their way to Lashkar-e-Taiba. A grave claim—yet one Sundaram forcefully dismantled: “Show me a scrap of paper which says so. It is nowhere.”
Mehta stood his ground, insisting the intelligence trail was there. But Justice Kant cut through the verbal sparring, reminding the court of its role: “Let’s not get into emotionally charged territory… This isn’t the issue before us.”
Even the Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati, acknowledged the line that must not be crossed: “Children should not suffer. If that is the issue, the police will take care of it.”
As far as the top court is concerned, collective punishment has no place in a civilized society. Especially when the supposed guilt is stitched from speculation—and the victims are still learning multiplication tables.
