The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to issue directions on a plea seeking 'martyr' status for victims of the recent Pahalgam terror attack, stating that such matters fall within the policy prerogatives of the government. The Court, however, noted that a representation may be submitted to the State, which would consider it in accordance with law.
The matter arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed by a practicing advocate, urging the Court to confer the status of ‘martyrs’ upon the 26 tourists who lost their lives in the terrorist firing incident in Pahalgam. The petitioner also sought to have the attack site officially designated as the “Shaheed Hindu Valley Tourist Place.”
During preliminary hearings on May 6, the Court had posed questions regarding the maintainability of such reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution. The attack, which took place last month, claimed numerous innocent lives and prompted a significant national response, including the initiation of "Operation Sindoor" by Indian authorities.
The petitioner submitted that the victims of the Pahalgam terror attack, who were unarmed civilians targeted while on pilgrimage, deserve national recognition equivalent to 'martyr' status. It was further contended that designating the site as a memorial would honor the sacrifices made and serve as a symbol of national resilience.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner relate to matters of governmental policy. The Bench noted, “The Court refrains from entering into the field of policy making, which is exclusively reserved for the executive.”
While expressing its constitutional limitations under Article 226 in matters of executive policy, the Court emphasized that the petitioner was free to approach the appropriate governmental authorities. The Bench clarified that such representation, if made, shall be considered by the State in accordance with law and established procedures.
In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the PIL without granting the reliefs sought, affirming that judicial intervention in policy decisions is impermissible. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a representation to the competent State authority, which shall adjudicate the request within the bounds of law.
Picture Source :
