Taking up a public interest litigation raising wide-ranging allegations of rising crime and human rights violations in Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday cautioned against entertaining broad, non-specific pleas. The Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu observed the Court was “being too liberal in these PILs”.At the outset, the counsel sought to paint a grim picture of law and order, citing an “increase in organized crime” including “kidnapping, robberies, extortions, contract killings, economic offences, cyber-crimes, child trafficking, trafficking of drugs, weapons… human trafficking for prostitution.”Referring to recent incidents, the counsel claimed: “Yesterday, there is a blast before the BJP office… anybody can be hurt… next to that there is a State Consumer Commission… and a petrol pump.” He further alleged “open firings” and asserted that citizens were living in fear: “Once we are outside our home, we don’t know from where the bullet is coming, from where the grenade is coming.” haryCourt questions sweep of allegationsThe Bench, however, was quick to express reservations about the breadth of the petition. Interjecting repeatedly, the Chief Justice remarked: “Your petition is too wide and non-specific.” When the counsel pressed that statutory authorities were failing to act, the Court responded: “It all depends on what kind of complaints come in.”The petitioner relied heavily on RTI data to contend that statutory mechanisms under the Protection of Human Rights Act were not being utilised, asserting that in five years, no proceedings had been initiated under the relevant provision to approach constitutional courts despite non-compliance with recommendations.He argued: “They have admitted… in five years, they have not adopted this procedure, not at all.” He further claimed that a significant proportion of human rights complaints were against the police.“We are listening a little too much”At this stage, Chief Justice Nagu made a broader institutional observation on the growing trend of PIL filings, observing: “I think we are being too liberal in these PILs… We are listening a little too much.”When the petitioner attempted to justify the increasing number of PILs by alleging loss of faith in subordinate courts, the Bench did not accept the generalisation and instead pressed for specificity and proper forum.Court declines to entertain vague PIL, grants libertyUltimately, the Court declined to proceed with the petition in its present form, indicating that generalised grievances and policy suggestions could not be adjudicated in such sweeping terms. The Bench during the course of hearing suggested that the matter could be placed before the human rights commission.  Directing the petitioner to refine his case, the Bench stated: “Be more specific and go back to them… We will dispose it. Otherwise… We’ll give you the liberty to be more specific and file a fresh representation.”