The division bench sought to know the source of this information. The petitioner’s lawyer Manindra Pandey claimed that he had procured the information from newspapers and social media posts.
The Court was not impressed and found the petition to be vague and without precise 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. 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,” the Court said.