Bombay HC refuses to entertain plea seeking safeguarding of waterfalls, says info from social media can’t be part of PIL

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor was hearing a PIL by lawyer Ajitsingh Ghorpade, argued through advocate Manindra Pandey, which claimed that nearly 1,500 to 2000 people lose their lives at unsafe waterfalls and water bodies every year.

After the bench sought to know from where the information was gathered, Pandey claimed the petitioner had procured the same from newspapers and social media posts. While calling the petition ‘vague with not much details,’ CJ Upadhyaya remarked, “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.”

The court noted that such pleas 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 bench asked.

After Pandey sought that the government should be directed to take steps to ensure the safety and protection of people who visit such water bodies and waterfalls, CJ Upadhyaya said 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 police,” the bench questioned.

The petitioner also claimed that no rescue team was available after a drowning incident, due to which the body of the victim was recovered days after the incident. The bench also asked whether the petitioner had visited any such waterfall or water body or if he had ascertained which waterfall or water body was more dangerous or unsafe. The high court then disposed of the plea as withdrawn.