Delhi High Court Decisively Rejects 'Baseless' Plea on Afzal Guru's Grave Location

The Delhi High Court has once again brought a decisive closure to a long-standing and, according to the court, "baseless" controversy surrounding the exact burial location of Afzal Guru, the mastermind behind the 2001 Parliament attack. In a recent ruling, the court vehemently dismissed a plea filed by former Tihar Law Officer Sunil Gupta, who alleged that Guru's grave had been moved and official records were fabricated, a claim the court found utterly lacking in merit.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a stern pronouncement, lambasted Gupta's petition as "misconceived" and founded purely on "conjectures and surmises," devoid of any credible supporting material.

The court emphatically stated that official records, which have remained consistent, clearly indicate that Afzal Guru was interred at Ward No. 1 within Tihar Jail No. 3 following his hanging on February 9, 2013.

Gupta's plea had sought a directive for the Delhi Government and Tihar Jail authorities to determine the precise location of Guru's grave, arguing that the existing records were tampered with.

However, the High Court’s ruling underscored the futility of such an exercise, especially given the lack of any substantiating evidence from the petitioner's side. The court noted that Gupta, despite having previously served as a law officer at Tihar, failed to provide any concrete proof for his assertions.

Adding to the finality of the matter, the court also recalled that an earlier plea filed by Afzal Guru's family seeking his body had already been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in 2013, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

This historical context further highlighted the repetitive and unsubstantiated nature of the current petition.

In a move to deter such petitions that consume valuable judicial time without legitimate grounds, the High Court imposed a significant cost of Rs 25,000 on Sunil Gupta. This penalty serves as a clear message that legal processes should not be engaged for speculative claims without a strong factual basis, especially on matters that have already been judicially settled.

The ruling firmly reiterates the judiciary's commitment to upholding documented facts and dismissing petitions that seek to create controversy based on conjecture.