Supreme Court Rejects Plea for SC Judge-Led Probe Into Pahalgam Attack, Cautions Against Demoralising Forces

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the formation of a special investigation panel led by a retired Supreme Court judge to probe the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The attack claimed the lives of 26 civilians, triggering public outrage and demands for accountability. However, the court strongly cautioned against using the judiciary to supervise security-related investigations and warned of the potential consequences such actions could have on national morale.

The Court’s Strong Response

A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and also comprising Justice N.K. Singh took a firm stand against the plea. The bench questioned the logic behind asking retired judges to lead criminal investigations, which traditionally fall under the jurisdiction of expert agencies such as the police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), or the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

“Be responsible before filing such a PIL,” Justice Kant said sternly.
“Since when have retired High Court or Supreme Court judges become experts in investigation? We only decide disputes.”

The court clarified that the judiciary’s role is not to lead or supervise investigations but to ensure that justice is served once all facts are presented through due process. The bench added that entertaining such a prayer could set a problematic precedent.

Appeal for National Unity Amid Crisis

Highlighting the sensitive nature of the issue, the court emphasised the need for national unity and restraint in times of crisis.

“This is the crucial hour when each and every citizen of the country has joined hands to fight terrorism,” the bench stated.
“Don’t make any prayers which could demoralise our forces. It is not acceptable to us! Look at the sensitivity of the issue.”

The remarks underscored the court’s concern that petitions of this nature—though possibly well-intentioned—could undermine the morale of the country’s security agencies actively engaged in anti-terror operations.

Sudden Change in Petitioner’s Plea

As it became clear that the court was disinclined to allow the request, the petitioner abruptly shifted focus and brought up the issue of safety and welfare of Jammu and Kashmir students studying outside the Union Territory. The petitioner asked the court to consider this concern and expressed a willingness to withdraw the other prayers made in the petition.

The court, however, expressed its displeasure with this sudden pivot.

“We will not mention anything. Please go wherever you want to go. Do not ask us to pass an order!” the bench remarked.
“You force us to read all these things at night, and then you forget the prayers you made!”

Eventually, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the PIL and granted the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court with the matter concerning the students.

NIA Takes Over Investigation

While the petition was dismissed, the investigation into the terror attack continues. On the same day, the Director General of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) visited Pahalgam after the agency officially took over the probe. This move followed an order issued by the Counter Terrorism and Counter Radicalisation (CTCR) division of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

The original PIL had also sought:

• A Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the attack,
• Directions to the Centre, Jammu and Kashmir administration, CRPF, and NIA,
• And a comprehensive action plan to safeguard civilians and tourists in Kashmir’s sensitive areas.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the plea highlights the judiciary’s clear stance on its non-involvement in operational security matters and criminal investigations. By emphasising the importance of unity and cautioning against demoralising the armed forces, the court reinforced its commitment to the broader national interest. While the call for justice remains vital, the court’s message is clear—security challenges must be handled by expert agencies, not through judicial supervision.

The case also serves as a reminder to citizens and activists to approach the judiciary with carefully considered petitions, especially during times of national crisis.