On May 20, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to grant "martyr" status to the 26 tourists who lost their lives in the Pahalgam terror attack. The petition was filed in the case titled Ayush Ahuja v. Union of India.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel made it clear that policy matters fall under the domain of the executive, not the judiciary.
“The Court refrains from entering into the field of policy making, which is exclusively reserved for the executive,”
— Punjab & Haryana High Court
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Police Constable for Illegally Keeping Seized Opium
The bench advised the petitioner to submit a formal representation before the appropriate government authority. It added that if such a request is made within 30 days, it shall be considered on its merits by the authority concerned.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Nagu raised a key constitutional concern and asked the petitioner:
“Does declaring them a martyr fall under Article 226? Please provide one precedent. This is an administrative matter and a question of policy, and should be left to the executive to decide. Can we do it?”
— Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
Read Also:- Marrying Under Christian Law Results in Loss of Hindu Scheduled Caste Status, Rules Madras High Court
The petitioner, Ayush Ahuja, responded by stating that the tourists were "shot on the head by terrorists in the name of religion" and argued that "they had to face the terrorists like soldiers." He urged the court to acknowledge their sacrifice in the same way that fallen soldiers are honored.
However, Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) Satya Pal Jain, appearing for the Union of India, opposed the plea. He stated:
“The petitioner has no idea what the Government of India is doing. The Home Minister reached Srinagar on the same evening… we are at the verge of war with the other nation... this is not the time to raise such issues, we are prioritising other things.”
— ASG Satya Pal Jain
Read Also:- Supreme Court Withdraws Action Against Lawyer After Apology in Tamil Nadu Cash-for-Jobs Case
Chief Justice Nagu also remarked on the process for recognizing martyrs, even in the case of armed forces:
“Even if some soldier dies, they must be considered for an award, but it is not given immediately — it takes time, usually at least one year.”
— Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
The court had reserved its judgment on the matter earlier on May 6 after hearing the arguments. The PIL had also requested that the place of the attack, Pahalgam, be officially declared a “Memorable Martyrs/ Shaheed Hindu Valley Tourist Place.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Services, Says Bookish Knowledge Alone Not Enough
Ultimately, the High Court chose not to intervene, emphasizing that such designations are part of government policy and not subject to judicial directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“This is an emotional and sensitive issue, but policy decisions are not made in courtrooms. The petitioner must approach the government.”
— Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Ayush Ahuja v. Union of India
