The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking “martyr” status for 26 tourists killed in the Pahalgam terror attack. Learn about the court’s reasoning, key statements, and legal context.

PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Rejected by Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to declare 26 slain tourists of the tragic Pahalgam terrorist attack as “martyrs.” The plea, titled Ayush Ahuja v. Union of India, was heard and rejected on May 20, 2025.

Court Maintains Policy Matters Are Not Judicial Decisions

The ruling was issued by a bench comprising Justice Sumeet Goel and Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. The court emphasized that decisions regarding conferring “martyr” status fall under executive jurisdiction and not judicial purview.

In the court’s words:
“The Court refrains from entering into the field of policymaking, which is exclusively reserved for the executive.”

However, the court allowed the petitioner to submit a representation to the appropriate authorities within 30 days for consideration.

Chief Justice Questions Constitutional Basis of the PIL

During the hearing, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu challenged the legal foundation of the plea under Article 226 of the Constitution. Addressing petitioner Ayush Ahuja, he asked,
“Does proclaiming someone a martyr fall under Article 226? Can you cite even one precedent?”
Ahuja defended his plea passionately, stating,
“The innocent tourists were shot in the head by terrorists in the name of religion — they faced death like soldiers.”

ASG Satya Pal Jain Opposes the Plea

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, representing the Union of India, strongly opposed the petition. He argued that the petitioner lacked awareness of ongoing governmental actions. Jain noted that the Home Minister had promptly visited Srinagar the evening of the attack.

He emphasized:
“This is not the time to raise such matters. The nation is on the brink of a larger conflict — priorities must be managed accordingly.”

Judgment Reserved Earlier This Month

The court had previously reserved its judgment on May 6. Apart from martyr status, the PIL also requested that Pahalgam be declared a “Memorable Martyrs/Shaheed Hindu Valley Tourist Place” to honor the victims’ memory.

Chief Justice Nagu explained the procedural timeline for such honors, remarking:
“Even when a soldier dies, award considerations take time — usually at least a year.”

Conclusion: Executive Holds the Final Authority

This case underscores the clear boundary between judiciary and executive powers in India. While the grief and heroism of the victims are acknowledged, the authority to bestow martyr status lies solely with the government. The court has provided a pathway for the petitioner to make his case to the relevant departments.