Bombay HC : PIL can’t be filed based on social media data
Bombay High Court Questions Constitutionality of 2023 Animal Birth Control Rules; Asks Union Government to Respond
During a Tuesday hearing on a petition alleging that 1,500 to 2,000 people in Maharashtra lose their lives in unsafe water bodies each year, the Bombay High Court ruled that information obtained from social media could not be included in the pleadings in a public interest litigation.
As per further information, the Maharashtra government was directed to take action to protect waterfalls and other water bodies in the state, but an advocate filed a PIL, which was dismissed by a division bench consisting of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
The attorney for the PIL applicant asserted that between 1,500 and 2000 people die annually at these dangerous waterfalls and water bodies. The bench then inquired as to where the petitioner obtained the death information for which the attorney said that the petitioner had got the information from social media posts and newspapers.
On this, the bench replied that information gathered from social media cannot be part of pleadings in a PIL. The petitioner cannot file PILs with such irresponsibility. The petitioner has wasted the time of the court. The bench restated that it would be a “sheer wastage” of time to consider such petitions.
The bench further added that if someone goes on a picnic and accidentally drowns, is that a PIL ? How is the accidental drowning of a person a violation of their fundamental rights?
The bench went on to recommend that action must be taken by the state government to guarantee the security and well-being of those who visit these types of water features and waterfalls. But what do you expect from the Maharashtra government? asked the bench. Can police officers be stationed at every waterfall and water body ? The bench stated that “reckless acts” were the cause of most accidents.
The court then asked whether the petitioner had been to any of these waterfalls or other water bodies. The petitioner was asked to withdraw the PIL by the court, which also recommended that the petitioner could file a PIL with the proper details. Agreeing to it, the petitioner withdrew the PIL.
Shreyas Vange
