The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mehbooba Mufti, the president of the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and former Chief Minister, seeking the transfer of undertrial prisoners from J&K lodged in various prisons outside the Union Territory to jails within J&K. The court, in its ruling on December 23, 2025, deemed the petition "vague, unsupported by material facts, and carrying clear political undercurrents".
Mufti's petition requested the court to direct authorities to immediately transfer all undertrial prisoners belonging to Jammu and Kashmir back to jails within the Union Territory, unless the authorities could demonstrate an "unavoidable or compelling necessity" for keeping them elsewhere. Furthermore, the petition sought the establishment of an "access protocol" that would include mandatory weekly in-person family meetings, unrestricted lawyer-client interactions, monitoring by Legal Services Authorities, and the formation of a two-member oversight committee.
The High Court's division bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, found that Mufti had failed to disclose basic details of any undertrial or family whose cause she claimed to support and had not challenged any specific transfer order. The court noted that lodging undertrials outside J&K is not a standard practice but is based on individual, case-specific orders passed by competent authorities.
The court observed that Mufti's petition lacked material documents, was grounded in ambiguity, and rested on incomplete, vague, and unsubstantiated assertions. The High Court emphasized that PILs should not be used to advance partisan or political agendas or to transform the court into a political platform. The court added that it cannot be employed as an instrument for achieving electoral advantage.
The court also pointed out that the undertrials in question are facing trials before respective courts and have judicial avenues available to address any grievances concerning their detention. Additionally, the court noted that none of the allegedly affected undertrials had approached the court through available institutional mechanisms, giving the court reason to believe Mufti, as a political leader, lacked the standing to advocate for them. The court stated that issues relating to a prisoner's rights are ordinarily individual grievances not suitable for PIL intervention and that broad directions cannot be issued without specific challenged orders.
Referring to the "violent past" of J&K, the court acknowledged that special security circumstances sometimes necessitate the transfer of certain undertrials outside the Union Territory. The court reiterated that genuine grievances related to prison conditions and undertrial rights are governed by existing Supreme Court directions.
