On Wednesday on Wednesday, the Delhi Court dismissed a public interest on Wednesday, looking for the removal of the graves of the parliament’s attack by Mohammad Afzal Guru and the founder of JKLF Mohammad Maqbool Bhatt of Tihar. Both were awarded the death penalty and executed in prison ten years ago.
Why was the request filed?
The petitioners claimed that the maintenance of the graves of convicted terrorists in the government facility was inappropriate and sought a court intervention for their relocation.
The petitioners claimed that Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt Graves turned Tihar into a “radical pilgrimage instead of extremist elements to worship convicted terrorists”, undermining public order and secular principles.
What did the High Court in Delhi said?
The division’s bench emphasized that such decisions were accepted by the government at the time of sensitive matters and could not be reopened for more than twelve years.
“But the removal of the grave that could exist in the last 12 years … The government has decided that it is very sensitive questions about permission to give the body to the body or funeral outside Tihar?
Delhi HC noted that only the competent authority could take a funeral decision in prison premises and that the judicial interference was unjustified if the law prohibits graves in prisons.
What about pilgrimage or celebration?
While the High Court in Delhi dismissed this action, he confirmed concerns about the possible celebration of the place. “We agree that there should be no pilgrimage or celebration, but there must be data about it. We can direct the prison authorities to stop it, but remove the grave after 12 years,” Lavička added.
The petitioner has applied for a drank permit and submitted fresh with empirical data supporting the celebration claims allowed by the court.
Did Delhi considered a high legal provision?
The court questioned whether any law explicitly banned graves in prison and examined the rules of the prison in Delhi and the Law on Municipal Society in Delhi. He concluded that there was no such ban and that the funeral decision was for the authorities.
“There is no provision that says the dead body of the prisoner must be cremated in prison … This lies in their (authorities) empire,” said Lavička.
What was the final result?
Drinking through SNEH Vardhan and Pratibha Sinha advocates was rejected as downloaded, which allowed the petitioners to refill the support data if they decide.
(Tagstotranslate) High Court in Delhi
