MUMBAI: Information on social media cannot be part of a public interest litigation, said the Bombay high court on Tuesday, declining to hear a PIL to direct the state to take safety measures at waterfalls 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 Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.They were hearing a PIL by Ajitsingh Ghorpade, a lawyer, on inaction of authorities, including the forest department and the tourism boards, over drowning or other accidents that take place during monsoons which, it claimed, violates fundamental rights under articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) and a directive principle under section 48A (protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wild life of the country).
The petition claimed there are 1,500-2,000 deaths every year, referring to newspaper reports of drownings at Tungareshwar waterfall in Vasai, Devkund in Raigad, Dugarwadi in Trimbakeshwar, Kal Mandvi in Jawahar, Palghar district, and Bhushi dam, Lonavala.
When the judges asked from where Ghorpade got the data, his advocates Manindra Pandey and Aayushi Chauhan said through social media and newspapers.The judges said social media information cannot be part of a PIL.
You can state before the court whatever you want? What is the basis of arriving at the figure? You cant be irresponsible while filing a PIL.
This is unnecessarily consuming judicial time.
Somebody goes for a picnic and gets drowned, therefore a PIL? said the CJ.The judges also questioned that if someone in an accident gets drowned, where is the violation of 14, 2148A?Pandey said many waterfalls and water bodies in the state are dangerous and do not have signboards and fencing.
The government must take the 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? asked the CJ.
The judges pointed to a news report which said three persons sitting on a rock in a waterfall had slipped and were carried away by the strong water current.
They said such accidents are due to reckless acts.The judges said the PIL is full of vagueness and asked 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They allowed the PIL to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, if the petitioner is so advised, with appropriate data, information, law and study.