'Opportunistic': SC raps petitioner, rejects PIL for security of tourists

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking improved tourist safety in terror-hit zones post the Pahalgam attack, calling it insensitive and publicity-driven. The court said such sensitive matters require executive discretion, not judicial activism.

The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on a petitioner who sought enhanced safety and health protocols for tourists in terror-prone areas, days after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh dismissed the petition outright, saying it lacked seriousness and sensitivity. “This seems more like an attempt to gain publicity than to serve any genuine public interest,” Justice Kant observed during the hearing.

"Last time we also advised you. Don't try to do this... What is your purpose? Who is inviting you to file these PILs?" the bench of Justices said.

The petitioner had urged the court to direct the Centre to frame uniform safety and emergency health standards for tourist destinations vulnerable to terrorism. However, the bench said the matter required nuanced understanding and coordination with state authorities, not knee-jerk litigation.

“You don’t understand the sensitivity of the issue. These matters are best left to the executive and security agencies,” the court remarked, making it clear that it would not entertain pleas that appeared "misconceived and opportunistic."

This is the second such petition dismissed by the apex court in connection with the fallout of the Pahalgam attack, with the bench reiterating that courts should not be turned into “platforms for performative concern.”