The given impulse response, $c(t) = \frac{1}{\pi t}$, is the impulse response of the Hilbert transform. However, there are some issues with the statement you encountered.
A pole at the origin in the frequency domain implies that the system's response increases indefinitely at DC (0 Hz). However, this does not necessarily imply instability in the time domain. Stability in the time domain is typically assessed based on whether the system's impulse response is absolutely integrable, not just based on the presence of a pole. Traditionally, a system is stable if the output is bounded for every bounded input. For a system to be $\ell_2$ stable, the impulse response must be absolutely square integrable. In DSP, this is often referred to as energy stability, meaning the total energy of the output is finite for any input with finite energy.
The Hilbert transform itself is not a causal system, and it does not have a pole-zero plot in the traditional sense used in control theory or DSP. Moreover, the Hilbert transform is not $\ell_2$ stable because its impulse response $c(t) = \frac{1}{\pi t}$ is not absolutely square integrable.
Therefore, the statement that the output signal $y(t)$ has infinite $||y(t)||^2$ for an input signal $x(t)$ satisfying $0 < ||x(t)||^2 < \infty$ could be true for a system with the given impulse response, since the Hilbert transform is not $\ell_2$ stable. However, the conclusion about the system's stability based solely on the pole at the origin is not sufficient. The key point here is the nature of the Hilbert transform and its impulse response in terms of square integrability.