- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Bombay High Court
- /
- Info Obtained From Social Media...
Info Obtained From Social Media Can't Form Part Of Pleadings: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Protection From 'Unsafe Water Bodies'
Sharmeen Hakim
29 Nov 2023 8:00 AM IST
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that pleadings in public interest litigations shouldn’t simply contain information gathered from social media.A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor refused to hear a plea by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade seeking directions for appropriate measures to safeguard people from waterfalls and water bodies, claiming that...
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that pleadings in public interest litigations shouldn’t simply contain information gathered from social media.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor refused to hear a plea by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade seeking directions for appropriate measures to safeguard people from waterfalls and water bodies, claiming that every year around 1,500 to 2,000 people lose their lives to 'unsafe water bodies' in Maharashtra.
"Information gathered from social media cannot be part of pleadings in a PIL. You (petitioner) cannot be so irresponsible while filing PILs. You are wasting judicial time. Somebody goes for a picnic and accidentally drowns, therefore a PIL? Someone drowns in an accident, how is it a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21?" the Court remarked.
On a query by the bench, the petitioner's lawyer claimed that he had gathered the information that 1500-2000 people lost their lives to unsafe water bodies each year from newspapers and social media posts. He contended that the state government be directed to take steps to ensure the safety of people who visit such water bodies.
The petitioners also pointed out that when such accidents occur, there is usually no rescue team available and bodies are recovered after a couple of days.
The bench took strong exception to the petitioners as they found the pleadings in the petition to be vague, and were of the view that most of these incidents were due to reckless acts of tourists.
"What do you expect from the Maharashtra government? Can each and every waterfall and water body be manned by the police?" the bench enquired.
The Court enquired about the petitioners' personal experience with waterfalls and asked them to file a more well-researched petition in future.
Accordingly, the lawyer withdrew the plea.