On 24th September, the Delhi High Court refused a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that asked for the graves of Kashmiri terrorists Mohammad Afzal Guru and Mohammad Maqbool Bhat to be removed from the Central Jail in Tihar.

The petition came from the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, which wanted the authorities to move the remains—even to a hidden place if necessary—to stop glorification of terrorism and any misuse of jail facilities. Maqbool Bhat, founder of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), and Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru were executed at Tihar—Guru in February 2013 and Bhat in February 1984—and buried within the prison.

In short, the court heard the case, glanced at the calendar, and decided that after more than a decade the graves are staying put—because nothing says “final” like twelve years of silence suddenly becoming too late to revisit.

What precisely the plea said

The plea said the two men planned and carried out terrorist attacks that threatened India’s security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity while acting under “extremist Jihadi ideology.” It claimed that members of a particular community now visit the graves to honour them.

According to the petition, Tihar has effectively turned into a “radical pilgrimage spot” for extremist groups, especially because the graves lie near Jail No. 3. It argued that the continued presence of these graves inside a state-run prison is illegal, unconstitutional, and against the public interest. As the petition put it, “This not only undermines national security and public order, but also sanctifies terrorism in direct contravention of the principles of secularism and rule of law under the Constitution of India,” a warning that was loud and clear—even if, as the court later reminded, loud warnings still need evidence.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the request could not be entertained because such decisions lie with the government, which must weigh law and order. They added that the government’s decision to bury them inside Tihar was a critical call taken long ago and cannot be changed after more than ten years. Translation in plain speak: policy chosen, clock ran, door closed.

The PIL stressed that tombs, shrines, or any religious structures on jail property are barred by the Prisons Act, 1894, the Delhi Jail Manual, 2018, and other prison rules. It also said the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, and the Delhi Prison Act, 2000, do not allow burial of prisoners within prison walls. Pointing to how executed terrorists Ajmal Kasab and Yakub Memon were handled to avoid glorification, the petitioners asked for immediate removal of the graves and shifting of the remains to a safe, undisclosed site.

The plea also cited Section 397 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which forbids burials at undesignated locations, and added a health warning: “The existence of graves inside the jail premises poses a serious risk of contagious and dangerous diseases to both the inmates and the employees of Tihar Jail.”

Finally, the petition underlined the operational rulebook: “The Jail Manual provides that bodies of executed prisoners are to be disposed of in a manner that maintains prison security, discipline, and public order. Nowhere does it permit the construction of permanent graves or shrines inside prison premises. By allowing such graves, the authorities have set a dangerous precedent that undermines the very purpose of prison discipline and order.” Clear rule, clear breach—at least on paper.

Court agrees with the PIL, yet declines

The court accepted the basic point that the graves should not turn into pilgrimage spots or be used for glorification. Then it brought out the evidence rulebook and asked for proof rather than headlines. In the Bench’s words: “We understand there should not be glorification. But you say people are going there as a pilgrimage. Where is the data? If that is so, there can be directions to stop all this. But as of now, we do not know,” a tidy way of saying that newspaper stories are not affidavits.

The Bench also reminded that last rites, once performed, are not a revolving-door affair: “Somebody’s last rites have been performed, and that has to be done with solemnity. Removing a grave which might have been in existence for the last 12 years? The government decided it keeping in view the fallout regarding permitting giving the body to the family or burial outside the Tihar jail? These are very sensitive issues. There are so many factors. The government (took a decision) keeping in view all the aspects and took a call. Can we now challenge that decision after 12 years?” So yes, concern noted; remedy denied—because, apparently, timing and paperwork beat rhetoric every time.

Faced with this, the petitioner asked to withdraw the PIL and return with concrete material showing visits and exaltation by radicals at the site. The Bench allowed withdrawal and dismissed the case as withdrawn. The message was unmistakable: bring data, not clippings; bring evidence, not echoes.