The Bombay High Court stated on Tuesday that information gathered from social media cannot be included in the pleadings of a public interest litigation (PIL).
The remarks were made during the hearing of a petition asserting that 1,500 to 2,000 individuals lose their lives annually in unsafe water bodies in Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor declined to hear a PIL filed by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade, seeking a directive for the Maharashtra government to take measures to safeguard waterfalls and water bodies in the state.
Ghorpade’s lawyer, Manindra Pandey, claimed that approximately 1,500 to 2,000 people lose their lives at such unsafe waterfalls and water bodies each year. The court inquired about the source of the information on the deaths, and Pandey mentioned newspapers and social media posts.
The court responded that the petition lacked details and deemed it vague.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked that information obtained from social media cannot be part of the pleadings in a PIL, emphasizing the responsibility in filing such petitions and avoiding wastage of judicial time.
The court asserted that petitions of this nature could not be entertained, considering them a “sheer wastage” of time. The bench questioned the relevance of a PIL in cases where accidents occurred during picnics or drownings due to accidents, stating that such incidents did not violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 (equality and life).
Pandey suggested that the state government should be directed to take steps for the safety and protection of people visiting water bodies and waterfalls. The bench, however, noted that many accidents were a result of “reckless acts” and questioned the practicality of having police man every waterfall and water body.
The court asked the petitioner to withdraw the PIL and encouraged the filing of a revised petition with proper details. The petitioner agreed and withdrew the petition.
