Pahalgam Attack: SC Declines PIL For Safety Of Tourists, Rebukes Petitioner

Supreme-Court

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought measures to ensure the safety of tourists in Jammu and Kashmir’s remote hilly regions following the Pahalgam terror attack.

The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s motives, suggesting that the PIL was filed more for publicity than a genuine public cause.

Publicity Over Public Interest

In its order, the court questioned Advocate Vishal Tiwari, the petitioner, for filing successive PILs which it deemed lacked a sincere interest in addressing public issues. Justice Surya Kant, expressing frustration, said:

“The petitioner is indulging in filing one after the other PILs, with the primary aim appearing to be to get publicity with no real interest in the public cause.”

Justice Kant further challenged Tiwari’s intentions, adding:

“Why have you filed this kind of PIL? What is your real motive? Don’t you understand the sensitivity of the issue? I think you are inviting some exemplary cost for filing this PIL.”

Deadly Attack In Baisaran Meadow

The PIL was filed in the wake of a deadly terror attack on April 22, 2025, when terrorists opened fire on tourists in the scenic Baisaran meadow of Pahalgam, a popular destination in Anantnag district. The attack claimed 26 lives, most of whom were tourists visiting the area. The attack not only raised concerns about tourist safety but also escalated tensions between India and Pakistan.

Diplomatic Fallout & Measures Taken by India

The Pahalgam attack became a focal point of diplomatic actions between the two nations. In response, India took several measures to signal its stance on cross-border terrorism and its relations with Pakistan, including:

Suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty
Halting cross-border trade at the Attari Integrated Check Post
Revoking the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme for Pakistani nationals

These actions reflect the growing diplomatic strains between the two countries in the aftermath of the attack, with India taking firm steps to counter terrorism and protect its sovereignty.

Court’s Dismissal

The dismissal of this PIL by the Supreme Court emphasizes the Court’s careful scrutiny of PILs, particularly when the petitioner’s true motives appear questionable.

In this case, the bench made it clear that it will not entertain frivolous petitions that seem to exploit serious issues for personal gain or publicity, underscoring the importance of genuine public interest in judicial matters.