SRINAGAR: Questions are being raised about the effectiveness of a petition seeking ban on the use of pepper gas and pellet guns against protestors in Kashmir, filed by separatist alliance Hurriyat Conference (moderates).
The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed by the High Court on Wednesday.
The court questioned the “public interest” of the petitions and said the petitioners had filed it only to gain publicity.
Senior separatist leader and chairman of the hardline faction of the Huriyat, Syed Ali Geelani said the counsel for petitioners should have consulted their seniors before filling the PIL.
“It is a very serious matter and those who filed the PIL should have taken the case seriously. It should not have been taken for granted,” said Geelani while adding that the usage of pellet guns and pepper gas was a delicate case, which demanded “seriousness’ and “maturity”.
Mr Geelani termed the dismissal of the PIL in High Court as the ‘message’ to Kashmir’s pro-freedom leadership not to take things “non-seriously”. “It is a serious lapse on our side and it has taught us again to remain vigilant about the serious issues.”
Also Read
Pepper Gas PIL: Kashmir’s Hurriyat to File Review Petition
Human rights activist and the Chairman of Internal Forum for Justice, Muhammad Ahsan Untoo said the Hurriyat led by Mirwaiz Umer Farooq did not do any ground work to make the PIL “a successful one”.
Mr Untoo said the High Court decision did not rule in favour of the petition because Hurriyat (M) “did not take pains” in this regard and they filed the PIL “half-heartedly”.
“I was the person who sought the attention of State Human Rights Commission regarding the ill effects of the use of pellet guns and pepper gas. I had done all the ground work and had mentioned the names of all the persons in the complaint that I filed before the Commission,” Mr Untoo said.
He alleged that Hurriyat (M) did not show any professionalism and approached the Court without any ground work.
Civil Society member, Hameeda Nayeem said the court judgment against the petition “amply made it clear” that government is using judiciary as a tool for its (own) interests.
She however said that there is a need to see whether the PIL filed in the Court of law was based on research or not.
