SRINAGAR: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the removal of the graves of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru and separatist leader Maqbool Bhat from Tihar Jail, rejecting the plea for lack of empirical evidence, according to multiple national media reports.
The petition, as per NDTV report, filed by the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, argued the burial sites had become pilgrimage spots and posed a threat to public order. However, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said no material had been produced to support the claim and stressed that courts could not rely on newspaper reports or social media posts.
“Where is the empirical data? We cannot act on news clippings,” the bench observed, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh plea supported by concrete evidence. The court also noted the absence of counsel representing the federal and Delhi governments.
The judges questioned the timing of the litigation, pointing out that Guru was buried in 2013 and Bhat in 1984. “It has been 12 years since Afzal Guru was buried. Why are you raising this now?” the bench asked. The court further underlined that the petitioner had to show infringement of rights rather than rely on personal views.
While the court agreed there should be no glorification of the executed men, it said removal of graves could not be ordered after more than a decade without compelling evidence. “Government took a call to bury them inside jail premises to avoid law-and-order problems. Can that decision be challenged after 12 years?” the bench remarked.
Afzal Guru, convicted for his role in the 2001 Parliament attack, was executed in February 2013. Maqbool Bhat, co-founder of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, was hanged in February 1984. Both were interred inside Tihar Jail under heavy security.
The PIL had also cited the burials of Ajmal Kasab and Yakub Memon as precedents, claiming authorities had ensured no glorification of their acts. The High Court, however, maintained that policy decisions lay with the government, not the judiciary.
