A Call for Transparency: Should the Supreme Court Have Entertained the PIL on the Pahalgam Terror Attack

Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata

PIL on the Pahalgam Terror Attack

Recently, the Supreme Court of India rejected to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for ordering a judicial inquiry into the Pahalgam terror attack of 2025, during which 27 innocent lives were lost. In their PIL, the petitioners demanded that a thorough investigation into the attack be ordered, and steps be taken for fortifying security of fragile areas like Jammu and Kashmir. The Court, however, refused to hear the petition, claiming it could have a negative impact on the morale of the security forces and could not make investigations of grave incidents the default solution. This decision provokes an important question: Is it justifiable for the Apex Court to outright reject a PIL merely on conjecture that it might ask uncomfortable questions? Is this in line with principles of justice, transparency, and accountability?

Legal Foundation for Accountability

The essence of judicial review is also accountability. The constitutional rights of the citizens have always been protected by the courts, especially the Supreme Court. At the level of national security, the duty of the Court is to ensure that security agencies answer for any actions that result in the loss of lives. While Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides the right to live, it imposes a duty on the state to take reasonable steps to secure life.

By refusing to allow a judicial inquiry into the Pahalgam terror attack, the Court raises questions about accountability. While the role of security forces in upholding the law is vital, it is equally important that no institution, including the armed forces, should be above question.

Legal Precedents on Judicial Inquiry and Accountability

The Supreme Court has often emphasized its duty to uphold justice, even in national security matters. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), the Court stressed that human rights violations should not be investigated by the government or security agencies themselves. The Court permitted an inquiry into alleged state violence, reinforcing the principle that judicial scrutiny is essential to protect against abuses of power.

In Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that the army and paramilitary forces should not be given blanket immunity from allegations of human rights violations, emphasizing that judicial intervention is necessary when justice requires.

Similarly, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial review under Article 32, emphasizing that the failure of the state or its agencies to protect citizen fundamental rights must be supervised by the courts.

The Court’s Rejection: Should the Army’s Morale be Demoralized or Justice Stifled?

Had the Supreme Court decided to hear the PIL, it would have argued that an inquiry into the terror attack might demoralize the armed forces, since the petitioners sought an independent investigation. While the morale of the armed forces is undoubtedly important, this should not come at the cost of transparency. Is it not the Court's duty to ensure that even the most revered institutions are held accountable when there are serious allegations of failure?

The Court's assertion that judicial inquiries would demoralize the forces is problematic. If questioning officials and seeking accountability undermines the forces' morale, this points to deeper issues of neglect and lack of oversight. Judicial scrutiny should not be seen as an attack on the forces but to reinforce trust in the system. An independent investigation would have demonstrated that justice is paramount, even in times of difficulty.

The Court's decision raises important concerns about the balance of power between the judiciary and the armed forces. In a democratic republic, is it not the judiciary's role to probe even the actions of the military, particularly when there is the potential for misconduct?

The Public’s Right to Know

When a terror attack occurs, particularly one that results in the loss of innocent lives, the public has a right to know how and why this happened and what is being done to prevent a recurrence. The petitioners in the Pahalgam PIL sought transparency and accountability. Their request for a judicial inquiry was not an attack on the armed forces but rather a call to ensure that such an attack never happens again.

By refusing to hear the PIL, the Court effectively shuts down any opportunity for public scrutiny of the actions taken by the government and security forces in response to the attack. Where do the people go for accountability when the Court refuses to address their concerns? Does the Court’s decision imply that powerful institutions are protected from public trust and transparency?

Jurisprudence of Judicial Scrutiny

The legal history of India shows that the Supreme Court has never been hesitant to intervene when justice requires. In K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954), the Court emphasized the importance of judicial oversight and stated that the security of the nation does not exempt actions from constitutional scrutiny.

In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997), the Court opined that "an action by the state in the name of national security which violates the fundamental rights of citizens", must be open to judicial review. This principle is directly reflected in the Pahalgam PIL, which seeks to ensure the protection of citizens’ rights by questioning the deaths of innocent civilians in a national security incident.

Conclusion: A Call for Justice

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has refused a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition for a judicial inquiry into a terror attack. However, the rejection of the Pahalgam PIL has sparked greater criticism for obstructing an inquiry into a terrorist attack that caused significant loss of life. The issue goes beyond justice for the victims and raises a broader question about the role of the judiciary in ensuring that security forces are held accountable for their actions, even when acting in the national interest.

The Court’s assertion that such inquiries might demoralize the armed forces is not well founded. Judicial scrutiny should not be seen as distrust of the armed forces; rather, it reflects a healthy democracy that values accountability, transparency, and justice for all citizens. The Supreme Court has left the door open for rejecting PILs based on national security concerns – essentially deciding that such questions cannot be questioned, leaving the people with nowhere to turn for justice.

The question remains: Is it fair for the Supreme Court to disregard the PIL and obstruct the legitimate inquiry into a terrorist attack? We must also reflect on whether this decision truly furthers the cause of justice or undermines it in the name of protecting the institution’s morale.

Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata