Information
gathered from social media cannot be part of the pleadings in a public interest
litigation, the Bombay High Court said on Tuesday while hearing a petition
claiming that 1,500 to 2,000 people lose their lives in unsafe water bodies in
Maharashtra every year.
A
division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor refused
to hear a PIL filed by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade seeking a direction to the
Maharashtra government to take measures to safeguard waterfalls and water
bodies in the state.
Ghorpade's
lawyer Manindra Pandey claimed that around 1,500 to 2000 persons lose their
lives at such unsafe waterfalls and water bodies every year, and the bench
sought to know from where the petitioner had got the information on the deaths.
Pandey
then said they had procured the information from newspapers and social media
posts.
The
court then said that the petition was vague and did not contain many details.
"Information
gathered from social media cannot be part of pleadings in a PIL. You
(petitioner) cannot be so irresponsible while filing PILs. You are wasting
judicial time," CJ Upadhyaya said.
The
bench noted that such petitions could not be entertained as it was a
"sheer wastage" of time.
"Somebody
goes for a picnic and accidentally drowns, therefore a PIL? Someone drowns in
an accident, how is it a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and
21 (equality and life)," the court said.
Pandey
then said that the state government should be directed to take steps to ensure
the safety and protection of people who visit such water bodies and waterfalls.
The
bench, however, noted that most of the accidents were because of "reckless
acts".
"What
do you expect from the Maharashtra government? Can each and every waterfall and
water body be manned by the police?" the bench asked.
To
this, the lawyer pointed out that many times when there is a drowning accident,
there is no rescue team, because of which the body of the victim is recovered
two to three days later.
The
court then sought to know if the petitioner had visited any such waterfall or
water body or if he had ascertained which one was more dangerous or unsafe.
The
bench asked the petitioner to withdraw the PIL and said he could file a
"better" PIL with proper details.
The
petitioner agreed and withdrew the petition.