High Court Rejects PIL Based On Social Media, Calls It 'Irresponsible Use of Judicial Time'

The Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that sought directions to the Maharashtra government to enhance safety measures at waterfalls and water bodies in the state. The division bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, criticized the petitioner, advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade, for relying on information from social media, deeming it irresponsible and vague.

The petition highlighted the high number of deaths—1,500 to 2,000 annually—related to visits to unsafe water bodies. However, the court questioned the credibility of the source, particularly information gathered from social media and newspapers. Justice Arif Doctor noted, "Information gathered from social media cannot be part of pleadings in a PIL. You cannot be so irresponsible while filing PILs."

Ghorpade's lawyer, Manindra Pandey, defended the plea, emphasizing the need for government intervention to protect people visiting these sites. The court remained unconvinced, challenging the relevance of a PIL based on accidental drownings. It questioned the practicality of assigning police to monitor every waterfall and water body, attributing accidents to reckless behavior.

The court sought specifics from the petitioner, asking if they had personally visited and identified hazardous locations. Additionally, it remarked on the petitioner's lack of diligence in filing a detailed and well-founded PIL. The bench expressed concern about the misuse of judicial time and highlighted the petitioner's failure to establish a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

In rejecting the PIL, the court emphasized the importance of responsible and well-founded petitions to address public interest concerns, discouraging the indiscriminate use of judicial resources.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News Writer, MIT ADT University