Take sympathetic view: Supreme Court asks J&K High Court to consider apology of law grad whose PIL was dismissed with costs

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court to take a sympathetic view towards a petitioner whose PIL was dismissed with costs last year. (Nikhil Padha v. National Human Rights Commission and ors).A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli permitted the petitioner, a young law graduate, to place an affidavit before the High Court tendering an unqualified apology for the manner in which the petition was drafted."The High Court is requested to take a sympathetic view if a genuine apology is placed before the learned Chief Justice on affidavit so as to obviate any adverse consequences in the career prospects of the petitioner in future.".While dismissing a plea filed by Nikhil Padha in September last year, the High Court had said that Public Interest Litigation (PILs) are not a pill for every ill and should not be entertained if the bona fides of the petitioners are in doubt.A Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal had further said that a PIL should not be used as a weapon to garner political mileage or scandalise the court.The Court, therefore, dismissed the PIL by the then 25-year-old law graduate seeking reopening of Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, Women Commission, Accountability Commission and State Information Commission, which were closed on account of the removal of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution of India.The Court had also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on Padha, after noting that the narration of the facts in the writ petition revealed that the petitioner was not a bona fide person but a proxy person set up by someone to initiate the litigation in public interest."He proclaims himself be a human rights activist as per the cause title of the petition as also as per the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. We fail to understand how a law student or who has passed law recently can be recognized as an ardent human rights activist as proclaimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed any of his activity which may indicate that he is actually involved in the protection human rights of the citizens or that he is an acclaimed human rights activist despite his tender age," the Court said.It further stated that the petition revealed that the petitioner is not really interested in the establishment of the above forums, but the real intent was to attack the government over the deletion of the special status granted to the erstwhile State..The present appeal before the apex court was moved on the limited point that the High Court's observations may mar the prospects of the petitioner.Advocate Fuzail Ahmed Ayyubi, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the High Court's observations on the manner in which the petition was drafted and the demeanour of the petitioner while presenting the case, could harm his future..[Read order]