MUMBAI: Information on social media cannot be part of a public interest litigation, said the Bombay high court on Tuesday while declining to hear a PIL to direct the State to take safety measures at water falls and water bodies in Maharashtra.
“Social media information will not be part of pleadings in a PIL. Where is authentic data?” asked Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Arif Doctor.
They heard a PIL by Ajitsingh Ghorpade, a lawyer, on the inaction of authorities, including Forest Department and Tourism Board, in respect of drowning incidents/accidents that take place during monsoons and violates fundamental rights under articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) and a directive principle under section 48A (protection of environment and safeguarding of forests).He referred to newspaper reports of drownings at Tungareshwar waterfall in Vasai, Devkund in Raigad, Dugarwadi in Trimbakeshwar, Kal Mandvi in Jawahar, Palghar district and Bushi Dam,Lonavala. His petition said there are 1500-2000 deaths every year.
To the judges query from where Ghorpade got the data, his advocates Manindra Pandey and Aayushi Chavan, replied, “through social media and newspapers.” This was when the judges reacted saying social media information cannot be part of a PIL. “Therefore you can state before the court whatever you want? What is the basis of arriving at the figure? You can’t be irresponsible while filing a PIL. This is unnecessarily consuming judicial time. Somebody goes for a picnic and gets drowned, therefore a PIL?” the CJ asked. The judges also questioned if “someone in an accident gets drowned, where is the violation of 14, 21…48A?”
Pandey said many waterfalls and water bodies in the State are dangerous and do not have sign boards and fencing. He said the government must take initiative to protect lives and prevent accidents. “Many deaths have occurred. Sometimes it takes 2-3 days to recover bodies,” he added. “You want every waterfall and water body to be manned by police?” the CJ asked. The judges pointed to a news report which stated that the three victims who were sitting on a rock in the waterfall had slipped and were carried away by strong water current. They said such accidents are also due to reckless acts.
The judges said the PIL is full of ‘vagueness’ and asked that the petitioner file a better PIL. “Come with more details. It is incumbent on your part to show there are no safety measures,” said Justice Doctor. They allowed the PIL to be withdrawn “with liberty to file a fresh petition, if the petitioner is so advised, with appropriate data, information, law and study.”
“Social media information will not be part of pleadings in a PIL. Where is authentic data?” asked Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Arif Doctor.
They heard a PIL by Ajitsingh Ghorpade, a lawyer, on the inaction of authorities, including Forest Department and Tourism Board, in respect of drowning incidents/accidents that take place during monsoons and violates fundamental rights under articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) and a directive principle under section 48A (protection of environment and safeguarding of forests).He referred to newspaper reports of drownings at Tungareshwar waterfall in Vasai, Devkund in Raigad, Dugarwadi in Trimbakeshwar, Kal Mandvi in Jawahar, Palghar district and Bushi Dam,Lonavala. His petition said there are 1500-2000 deaths every year.
To the judges query from where Ghorpade got the data, his advocates Manindra Pandey and Aayushi Chavan, replied, “through social media and newspapers.” This was when the judges reacted saying social media information cannot be part of a PIL. “Therefore you can state before the court whatever you want? What is the basis of arriving at the figure? You can’t be irresponsible while filing a PIL. This is unnecessarily consuming judicial time. Somebody goes for a picnic and gets drowned, therefore a PIL?” the CJ asked. The judges also questioned if “someone in an accident gets drowned, where is the violation of 14, 21…48A?”
Pandey said many waterfalls and water bodies in the State are dangerous and do not have sign boards and fencing. He said the government must take initiative to protect lives and prevent accidents. “Many deaths have occurred. Sometimes it takes 2-3 days to recover bodies,” he added. “You want every waterfall and water body to be manned by police?” the CJ asked. The judges pointed to a news report which stated that the three victims who were sitting on a rock in the waterfall had slipped and were carried away by strong water current. They said such accidents are also due to reckless acts.
The judges said the PIL is full of ‘vagueness’ and asked that the petitioner file a better PIL. “Come with more details. It is incumbent on your part to show there are no safety measures,” said Justice Doctor. They allowed the PIL to be withdrawn “with liberty to file a fresh petition, if the petitioner is so advised, with appropriate data, information, law and study.”