Leh: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the newly appointed Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh, reiterating that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used for publicity or personal motives.
The PIL was filed after the petitioner cited social media allegations made by a prominent advocate, claiming that the new Ladakh LG and the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) were linked to illegal constructions in Jammu.
Based on these online accusations, the petitioner sought a judicial inquiry, a probe by agencies such as the CVC or CBI, and directions to the media for “responsible reporting.”
The petition, WP(C) PIL No. 3009/2025, titled Press Core Council v. Union of India, was heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal.
The petitioner, Press Core Council, was represented by Indu Bhushan Bali, who appeared in person, while the Union of India was represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, assisted by Sumant Sudan.
The Bench noted that except for bald assertions, the petitioner had not placed any specific details, supporting material, or documents on record.
Significantly, even the social media posts and media addresses, which formed the very basis of the petition, were not annexed.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma and earlier judgments on the misuse of PIL jurisdiction, the High Court reiterated that PILs cannot be permitted to degenerate into “publicity interest” or “private interest” litigation.
Vague and unsubstantiated allegations, the Bench said, do not justify invoking PIL jurisdiction.
The court observed that the petitioner was effectively seeking a roving inquiry by premier investigating agencies solely on the basis of unverified social media accusations—an approach the Bench termed an abuse of the court’s process.
“This petition is not only misconceived but has been filed with the intention of gaining public attention,” the court remarked, dismissing the PIL.
Although the Bench said the case warranted exemplary costs, it chose a lenient view and dismissed the petition without imposing costs, while cautioning the petitioner against filing such publicity-driven PILs in future.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
