SC Rebukes Probe Plea in Pahalgam Attack Case

The Supreme Court rebuffs a judicial probe into the Pahalgam terror attack, defending India’s security forces from morale-damaging petitions.

SC Rejects Judicial Probe Plea, Urges National Unity After Pahalgam Attack

In a sharp, no-nonsense rebuke, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea on Thursday that sought a judicial inquiry into the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir. The bench—clearly frustrated—warned that such petitions risk undermining national solidarity and demoralizing security forces at a time when the country is mourning and mobilizing in equal measure.

The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and joined by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, cautioned the petitioner for acting irresponsibly and reminded him—and by extension, the wider public—that the fight against terrorism requires collective resolve, not courtroom grandstanding.

A Nation in Mourning Meets a Court in No Mood for Distraction

The plea was filed by lawyer Hatesh Kumar Sahu, who asked the apex court to appoint a retired judge to probe the April 22 terror incident that shook Baisaran meadow in Pahalgam, a scenic enclave in South Kashmir. The attack claimed the lives of 26 civilians, including tourists, and injured many more. But instead of validating the petition, the court fired back with a sharp question: “Since when have retired judges become experts in criminal investigations?”

The bench didn’t stop there. “This is a moment when every citizen must stand united against terror,” the judges said. “Do not demoralize our forces with such petitions.”

Intentions Questioned, Petition Withdrawn

Sahu, appearing visibly uneasy during the hearing, clarified that his concerns were for students and civilians visiting the region, not to challenge or criticize India’s armed forces. The court, while permitting him to withdraw the plea, advised him sternly to be more thoughtful before filing such matters.

“You owe a duty to the country,” the bench said. “And this is how you choose to discharge it?”

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, also weighed in, stating that petitions of this nature should not even find their way into high courts unless grounded in concrete concerns of public safety—not abstract allegations or emotional appeals.

The Attack That Shook the Valley

The April attack, among the deadliest in recent years, was carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. It occurred in Baisaran, an alpine haven often likened to Switzerland for its pristine landscape, popular among vacationing families and trekkers.

Gunfire shattered the serenity, leaving dozens dead and injured. Survivors described scenes of chaos, with children among the victims. The brutality of the act united political leaders, legal institutions, and civil society in rare consensus.

Judiciary Responds with Solemn Condemnation

In an extraordinary move, the Full Court of the Supreme Court issued a resolution condemning the attack. “This diabolical act of mindless violence has shaken the conscience of all,” the statement read. It went on to describe the attack as an “affront to the values of humanity and the sanctity of life.”

Bar associations across India mirrored the condemnation, calling the attack a “cowardly strike on peace,” and reinforcing that targeting civilians—especially tourists—represents the darkest side of terrorism.

The Debate: Accountability vs. Morale

While India prides itself on a transparent judicial system, Thursday’s proceedings drew a clear line between advocacy and national sensitivity. Legal experts noted that while citizen vigilance is crucial in a democracy, it must not veer into misdirected activism that hampers operational confidence.

“Morale is as much a weapon as ammunition in a counterterror strategy,” said Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Vinod Bhatia, adding, “The judiciary is right to protect our frontline defenders from misplaced blame when there’s no evidence of procedural failure.”

A Call to Choose Unity Over Distrust

Thursday’s Supreme Court session served as a reminder that not every tragedy demands a courtroom response—especially when the nation is still grieving. The country, courts included, is standing firmly behind those risking their lives to secure peace in Kashmir.

And while concerns for safety must never be silenced, the court has clarified that they must be voiced with responsibility, not in ways that risk fracturing the very unity required to defeat terror.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Civic Responsibility

In the aftermath of a senseless massacre, India faces a test—not just of its security apparatus, but of its collective character. The Supreme Court’s response sends a powerful message: in moments of national pain, responsibility matters. True justice doesn’t always begin with a petition—it starts with standing together.

Disclaimer:
This article is intended for informative and journalistic purposes only. It reflects factual developments from Supreme Court proceedings and does not offer legal advice or opinions on individual actions or pending investigations.

source : Hindustan Times