Introduction:

In the case titled Rooda Veershetty v. Union of India & ANR (Writ Petition No. 33725 of 2024), the Karnataka High Court addressed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Rooda Veershetty. The petitioner sought directives compelling the Union and State Governments to safeguard the lives, properties, and religious sites of Hindus and other minority communities residing in Bangladesh. The PIL was predicated on a news article dated August 13, 2024, from the Kannada newspaper Prajavani, which reported on communal unrest in Bangladesh.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Mr. Veershetty, appearing in person, contended that recent communal disturbances in Bangladesh posed significant threats to Hindu minorities and their religious establishments. He argued that the Indian government holds a moral and constitutional obligation to protect individuals of Indian origin, even beyond its borders. Citing the news report from Prajavani, he emphasized the urgency for governmental intervention to prevent further atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh.

Respondents’ Arguments:

Representing the Union of India, Deputy Solicitor General H. Shanthi Bhushan contended that the PIL was based solely on a singular news article without substantial evidence. He argued that India’s jurisdiction does not extend to the internal affairs of a sovereign nation like Bangladesh. Additionally, he emphasized that diplomatic channels are the appropriate avenues for addressing such international concerns, and the judiciary should refrain from intervening in matters of foreign policy.

Advocate General Niloufer Akbar, representing the State Government, aligned with the Union’s stance, asserting that the issues raised pertain to international relations, which fall exclusively under the purview of the Central Government. She further argued that the PIL lacked concrete evidence and was based on vague allegations, rendering it unsuitable for judicial intervention.

Court’s Judgment:

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun, meticulously examined the petition and the arguments presented. The court observed that the PIL was founded solely on a news item without any corroborative evidence. The bench noted that the petition was “peculiarly vague” and “thoroughly misconceived,” emphasizing that it could not be entertained under the public interest jurisdiction.

The court underscored the principle of non-intervention in the internal matters of sovereign nations, stating that any concerns regarding the treatment of minorities in Bangladesh should be addressed through appropriate diplomatic channels. The judiciary, the bench asserted, is not the proper forum for such international issues, especially when based on unverified reports.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, reiterating that it lacked the requisite specificity and substantiation to warrant judicial intervention. The bench emphasized the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and respecting international sovereignty, highlighting that the judiciary must exercise restraint in matters involving foreign affairs.