The Supreme Court on May 1 came down heavily on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the formation of a judicial commission to investigate the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which claimed 26 lives.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh reprimanded the petitioners, questioning the intent and timing of the plea. “Be responsible. You owe some duty towards the country. Is this the way? Please don’t do this,” said Justice Kant, adding, “Since when has a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge become an expert to investigate such issues (terrorism)?”
The bench refused to entertain the petition, stating that such pleas could demoralise efforts to combat terrorism. “This is the crucial hour when each and every citizen of this country has joined hands to fight terrorism. Don’t make any prayer that can demoralise a person. Look at the sensitivity of the issue,” Justice Kant further remarked.
Following the court’s sharp rebuke, the petitioners sought and were granted permission to withdraw the plea.
On April 22, the peaceful valley of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir was turned into a graveyard by one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in recent history. At least 26 civilians, with 24 of them being Hindus, were brutally gunned down by Islamic terrorists affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy outfit of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The attackers opened fire on unarmed tourists, deliberately targeting them for their religious identity. Survivors and witnesses, speaking both on record and on camera, confirmed that the victims were chosen because they were not Muslims.
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26, several international media outlets—including BBC, Al Jazeera, Washington Post, France 24, and DW—came under fire for downplaying the Islamist nature of the killings. Using euphemisms like “gunmen” and politically loaded terms like “Indian-administered Kashmir,” their reports largely avoided calling the attackers “terrorists” or naming Pakistan-backed groups like TRF. Outlets like SBS, Bangladesh Guardian, and Middle East Eye followed similar patterns, subtly questioning India’s sovereignty while ignoring the victims’ religious identity. Only Asia News Network partially acknowledged the attack’s true nature, revealing a troubling global media trend of narrative manipulation.
The PIL and Western media’s spin on the Pahalgam terror attack reeks of a deliberate attempt to shield Pakistan-backed terrorists and blur the lines of accountability.
