Delhi HC dismisses PIL seeking removal of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat’s graves from Tihar jail

The division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned what statutory law or fundamental or constitutional rights are being violated through the existence of the graves.

CJ Upadhyaya orally remarked, “You’ve to make a case for infringement of statutory provisions, or constitutional rights… (otherwise) it is a matter to be taken elsewhere… These are not matters that can be agitated in a court of law… we are a democratic society, it provides other forums. For coming to court, you’ve to establish infringement of your fundamental or statutory or constitutional rights. We prima facie do not agree (with you)… No law or statute prohibits burial or graves inside jail… This was in 2013, why are you raking up this issue after 12 years?”

The court also demanded empirical evidence and data for the organisation’s claim that the jail is now being used as a pilgrimage spot.

CJ Upadhyaya orally remarked, “What is the material (of this claim) to say that people are going inside jail and paying homage?…” The organisation responded that it is relying on “information on the public domain”, including media reports.

The court, however, pointed out orally that while there are verdicts dissuading glorification of terrorists, the petitioner is seeking removal of the graves 12 years later.

“We understand there are judgments on glorification… You’re basically against burial in jail. One, it was in 2013, we’re in 2025. Two, you’re terming it to be a ‘nuisance’ under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. You say people there are going on a ‘pilgrimage’… where is the data available?”

It further said, “There can be a direction to jail authorities to stop all these… The government decided it, keeping in view the fallout of giving the body to family members… These are very sensitive issues from both sides… somebody’s last rites have to be respected. At the same time, we need to ensure that no law and order situation arises… There are so many factors… the government took all these decisions, can it be challenged after all these years?… We need to have data for pilgrimage… prayer should be to issue directions to jail authorities, but removal altogether after 12 years…”

Following the court’s remarks, the petitioner requested to withdraw the plea, which the court allowed, recording that the PIL stands dismissed as withdrawn.