Chief Justice Sheel Nagu

Trending Today Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims MAHI SINHA 20 May 2025 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. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »