Shaheen Bagh grave reuse plea dismissed by court

A Delhi court has upheld the dismissal of a man’s plea for a temporary injunction against the reuse of his wife’s grave, where she was buried in April 2021, by the management of the Shaheen Bagh graveyard, saying it would create a private right on the scarce public land meant to be utilised for the needs of society.

The court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of interim relief and would not affect the appellant’s right to lead evidence before the trial court during the pendency of the suit.

District Judge Atul Ahlawat was hearing a plea filed by M Basharat Hussain against the October 8, 2025, order of a trial court refusing the plea against the Management Committee of Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind and the graveyard caretaker.

The appellant had sought protection of the grave of his wife, who was buried at the Shaheen Bagh graveyard in April 2021, contending that under Muslim personal law, a grave could not be reopened or reused until the body had completely decomposed.

The management committee had argued that the graveyard was facing an acute shortage of burial space and that reuse of graves, undertaken with dignity and in accordance with accepted religious practice, was permissible in cases of necessity.

In an order dated July 10, the court said, “The trial court had correctly appreciated the facts in the background of the applicable laws and this court does not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order.

“Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned order is accordingly upheld”. The appellant had argued that disturbing the grave before seven years have passed would violate the dignity of the deceased and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Management Committee of Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind and graveyard caretaker Mufti Abdul Raziq opposed the plea, saying the appellant had no legal, statutory, contractual or religiously enforceable right to reserve a specific grave in a public cemetery.

Dismissing the appeal, the court said that while Islamic law generally prohibits disturbing graves, authoritative religious texts recognise an exception where burial space is scarce.

“The temporary injunction as sought by the appellant to preserve the dignity of the body of his deceased wife could not be granted for any particular period of time, since it would have amounted to creating a private right on the scarce public land,” the court said.

The judge noted that both parties had acknowledged that the Holy Quran is silent on the issue of reuse of burial space and had relied instead on Hadith.

“The temporary injunction as sought by the appellant to preserve the dignity of the body of his deceased wife could not be granted for any particular period of time, since it would have amounted to creating a private right on the scarce public land, which is utilised for the needs of the society as a whole and the Muslim populace in particular,” the judge said.

Referring to Islamic jurisprudence, the court said the religious texts permit reuse of burial space in cases of necessity, although removal of the bones of the first deceased remains prohibited.

The court further held that the appellant had failed to produce any scientific or cogent evidence to establish that his wife’s body had not fully decomposed or that a minimum period of seven years was mandatory before the grave could be reused.

It said that merely asserting that the body would require at least seven years to decompose, without any supporting evidence, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction.

The court also reiterated that the scope of interference in an appeal against an order on interim injunction was limited and an appellate court could not substitute its own discretion unless the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, perverse or contrary to settled legal principles.

Finding no perversity or arbitrariness in the trial court’s order, the district judge upheld the dismissal of the injunction application and dismissed the appeal.