The Supreme Court ruled that a family shouldn't suffer after NDPS accused children of being tormented for a fabricated connection to the Pahalgam massacre.

The Court noted that no family member should be harmed, whether or not the accused committed the crime.

Concerns that a man accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was being taunted by his children after he was falsely connected to the recent terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 people were noted by the Supreme Court on Thursday [Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar vs. The State of Gujarat]. 

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N Kotiswar Singh noted during the hearing of the accused's bail motion, 

"No family member of any person, whosoever committed or did not commit anything, no family member should suffer due to it." 

This comes after Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, who represented the accused in court, said that the accused's children were being called "terrorist's children" and were being bullied at school as a result of the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) allegations. 

There was conjecture linking the case to the recent Pahalgam terror incident as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that a portion of the money obtained from the drugs in the case went to the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. 

Sundaram argued that the accused's minor children had been harassed and socially shunned as a result of the claim, forcing the family to pick them up from school. 

"Abruptly, Pahalgam was brought up yesterday... Please clarify that this is unrelated to this NDPS instance," 

Sundaram asked. 

In response to the comments, Mehta insisted that there was proof that Lashkar-e-Taiba had received the money from the suspected narcotics trade. 

Sundaram, however, disputed this and demanded documentation of the relationship. 

"Show me a piece of paper that says that." According to Sundaram, it is nowhere. 

Justice Kant stepped in and said that these kinds of questions had nothing to do with the case the Court was considering. He warned against both sides' passionate arguments. 

"Let's avoid needlessly getting into this because it is not the topic that comes up for consideration. When defending a point, people can occasionally be influenced by their feelings. On both sides, it occurs," he noted. 

Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General, agreed that family members' legal actions shouldn't force children to suffer. 

"Children shouldn't endure hardship. "The police will handle it if that's the problem," Bhati stated.

Related News

If the accused is served with a consolidated notice of demand, a single complaint for the dishonor of more than three checks may be maintained: The J&K&L High Court

Orissa High Court Shares Concerns About Data Breach & Privacy Violations While Upholding Mandatory PAN-Aadhaar Linking For Demat Accounts

The Supreme Court dismisses the case against a public servant, stating that S. 197 CrPC does not envision the concept of "deemed sanction."