The Supreme Court’s sharp response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial probe into the Pahalgam terror attack has stirred discussion on the limits of judicial intervention in matters of national security. On Thursday, the apex court unequivocally refused to entertain the petition, stressing that such requests, particularly at a time of national mourning and heightened tension, could undermine the morale of security forces engaged in the fight against terrorism.
Justice Surya Kant, who headed the bench, admonished the petitioner for failing to consider the gravity and sensitivity of the situation before filing the plea. "Be responsible before filing such PILs," the court remarked. "You have some duty towards your country also. This is the crucial hour when each and every Indian has joined hands to fight terrorism. Don't demoralise the forces. Look at the sensitivity of the issue."
The PIL had called for a judicial commission—specifically headed by a retired Supreme Court judge—to investigate the brutal terrorist ambush in Baisaran Valley, Pahalgam, where 26 people were killed in an attack orchestrated by Pakistan-based terror operatives, reportedly from Lashkar-e-Taiba, along with a local collaborator. The court, however, made it clear that it was not the judiciary’s role to take on investigative responsibilities, which constitutionally lie with agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
"Since when have we acquired expertise of investigation?" the court asked pointedly. "You are asking a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate. They can only adjudicate. Don’t ask us to pass such orders."
The petitioner was also criticized for overburdening the court with a series of loosely connected prayers within the same petition. Apart from calling for an investigation, the plea had sought guidelines for protecting Kashmiri students in other parts of India, claimed they were being targeted in the wake of the Pahalgam attack, and also asked for compensation and press-related directions.
The court, in a stern tone, rebuked the petitioner again: "Are you sure about the prayer you are making? First you ask a retired Supreme Court judge to probe. They cannot investigate. Then you ask for guidelines, compensation, then directions to press council. You force us to read all these things at night, and now you speak for students."
Ultimately, the court allowed the plea to be withdrawn but noted that the petitioner could approach the relevant High Court on the matter concerning student protection, if there was credible evidence to support those claims.
The Pahalgam terror attack, now under investigation by the NIA, remains one of the most horrific incidents in recent years in Jammu and Kashmir. According to intelligence reports, the operation was executed by two Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives infiltrating from across the border, aided by a local militant. The incident has exacerbated tensions between India and Pakistan, with the Indian government publicly blaming Pakistan for sponsoring cross-border terrorism.
This strong stance by the Supreme Court underscores its deference to specialized agencies in matters of national security and its reluctance to entertain petitions that may, even unintentionally, interfere with or politicize counterterrorism operations.
