New Delhi, Sept. 25 -- The central government took a conscious and sensitive decision to bury Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru and Kashmiri Separatist leader Mohammad Maqbool Bhatt within Tihar Jail premises at the time of their execution, and this cannot be revisited after more than a decade, the Delhi High Court observed on Wednesday, dismissing a plea seeking removal of their graves from the prison premises. Mohammad Afzal Guru was sentenced to death and executed in Tihar Jail in February 2013 for his involvement in the 2001 Parliament attack. Mohammad Maqbool Bhat was hanged in February 1984 in connection with the abduction and murder of Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre in the UK, an act carried out by an alleged member of the now-banned terror outfit Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Dealing with a petition filed by Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh and a man named Jitendra Singh, a bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela opined that only the competent authority could take a call on such matters and judicial intervention was unwarranted in the absence of a law barring burial or cremation inside the premises. The existence of the graves, the court said, did not amount to public nuisance as per the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act. The Sangh's lawyer Manoj Sinha submitted that the presence of graves in Tihar had turned the jail "into a site for radical pilgrimage" where extremist elements were gathering to pay homage. He further submitted that its existence amounted to public nuisance as per the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act and was also violative of express provisions of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which mandate the disposal of bodies of executed prisoners in a manner that prevents glorification. Considering the contention, the court pointed out that the graves have been in jail for some time and that the government's decision was "in view the fallout of the body being given to the family members or permitting burial outside". "These are very sensitive issues. At the same time, we deem it necessary to ensure that no law and order situation arises. " It added, "There are so many factors. The government, keeping in view all these aspects, took a decision to perform the burial inside the jail. Can we decide now after 12 years? No law or statue prohibits burial or cremation inside jail. You're terming it to be a nuisance within the meaning of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (Act). Prima facie, it may be anything but a nuisance within the meaning of the act." With regards to Sinha's claim that the graves were being treated as a pilgrimage site the bench acknowledged the concerns, but said no evidence was submitted to support his assertion. "You say that people are going there (to the jail) as a pilgrimage. Where is the data available? If that is so, there can be a direction to the jail authorities. So far as the assertion that it is being used as a pilgrimage and all, you need to have data. It should not be done, we agree. But for that you need to have data and for that the prayer should be to issue directions to the jail authorities to take steps so that no glorification takes place?" the bench remarked. With the writing on the wall, Sinha urged the court to allow him to withdraw the petition, with the liberty to file a new one with empirical data. Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petition as withdrawn....