The court also castigated the lawyer, who had moved the PIL, for calling Hurriyat Conference leaders "separatists" saying it was a matter of perception.
"We are of the considered opinion that the grant of funds to the state of Jammu and Kashmir for the purposes of security or otherwise is within the exclusive domain of the Central Government. In a matter like this, we are of the considered opinion that a public interest litigation does not deserve to be entertained and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere.
The bench, also comprising Justice U U Lalit, expressed reservation on petitioner lawyer M L Sharma terming Hurriyat leaders as "separatists", and said "it's a matter of perception. Has the government declared them separatists? The conduct of a man may not be to the liking of others and they call him separatist, but you can't use that term in court".
The bench expressed further displeasure when Sharma said that "politicians are promoting terrorism."
The PIL had claimed that more than Rs 300 crore was spent on the separatists on their stay at hotels, security and other expenses by the government, misusing the money.
Sharma claimed that the issue was a "big threat to the society" and only the judiciary could protect the country.
To this, the apex court said the judiciary cannot examine what funds are given to whom when it comes to managing the situation in a state like Jammu and Kashmir.
to Hurriyat leaders at the exchequer's expense, the bench said any security cover given by a government to a citizen who faces threats, is completely within the domain of the executive.
"Everyone must understand. In issues like this, courts have a nominal role. Who shall be provided security and what security or not is the power of the executive. National security is the job of the Centre and the Army. They will do whatever is best for the country," the court said.
The bench reminded the advocate that the concept of PIL was not conceived for these purposes. It was done to deal with issues like environment, encroachment and with the passage of time, it also included issues like corruption.
"Declare the impugned release of fund from Consolidated Fund of India, without authority and valid permission for supporting separatist group for working against the country, as unconstitutional, illegal and amount to criminal breach of trust attracting section 409 of the IPC...," the plea said.
The PIL, which has made Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Jammu and Kashmir government and CBI as parties, had alleged that an offence of corruption for misusing of public office and funds has been made out in the case.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
