KEYWORDS:- Bombay High Court, Public Interest Litigation, Social Media, Maharashtra Government, Waterfall, Water bodies
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reprimanded a lawyer for filing a public interest litigation (PIL) which was based on information collected from social media.
Ajitsingh Ghorpade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
A divisional bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor has refused to entertain such a petition filed by Advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade which seeks directions to the government of Maharashtra to take measures to protect people who visit waterfalls and water bodies in the state.
The Petition marked that approximate 1500-2000 people died while visiting unsafe waterfalls and water bodies every year.
The division bench of Justices seek to know the sources of this information. The petitioner’s lawyer said that he had gathered information from social media posts and newspapers.
The Court was disappointed and found the petition to be vague and without pinpoint details.
The Court said that the information collected from the posts of social media cannot be the part of pleadings in a Public Interest Litigation. Petitioner cannot be irresponsible at the time of filing PIL’s. It’s just a waste of judicial time or nothing else. If somebody goes for a picnic and accidentally drowns, therefore it constitute a PIL? And how is it a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Pandey further opined that the State government should take steps to safeguard and protect the people who visit such water bodies and waterfalls. And also pointed out that during a recent drowning incident, there was no rescue team present due to which the victim’s body was received after two days of the incident.
The bench asked whether the petitioner had visited any such waterfall or water body and ascertained which waterfall or water body is dangerous or unsafe.
The Court further observed that most of the incidents seemed to be occur because of the carelessness acts by the persons visiting such places.
It was asked by the bench that, What you want from the Government of Maharashtra? Can every waterfall be managed by police?
The Court asked the petitioner to file another and better petition with specific details. The petitioner then withdrew a PIL when Court grants him liberty to file a fresh plea.
Case Name:- Ajitsingh Ghorpade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Written by:- Dolly Singh Gehlot, College:- BM Law College, Jodhpur, Semester:- 5th an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments