Terrorists behind the Pahalgam massacre remain hidden in South Kashmir with enough food and provisions. NIA sources say they are self-reliant, evading capture despite a massive manhunt.
New Delhi: The brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, South Kashmir, on April 22 — where 26 innocent civilians lost their lives — The Supreme Court rejected a request for a judicial inquiry into the Pahalgam terror attack, making strong observations in the process.
The case was taken up by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh.
The lawyer had requested that a retired judge should be appointed to investigate the killings that happened during the Pahalgam incident.
However, the Supreme Court was not pleased with this request. Justice Surya Kant sharply questioned the lawyer’s intention behind filing such a petition.
Justice Surya Kant pointedly asked the lawyer,
“Is this the way you want to demoralize our forces?
After the Supreme Court questioned whether a petition for a judicial probe into the Pahalgam terror attack was intended to “demoralise the forces,” the petitioner responded by urging the court to consider the plea.
The case, now under the investigation of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), may eventually be brought before the highest court for review of constitutional duties of the Centre under Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 355 (duty of the Union to protect States), and the rights of victims’ families to justice under Indian law.
As per media reports citing NIA sources, the four terrorists who carried out the attack are still hiding in the dense forests around Pahalgam. They have avoided capture despite a large-scale search operation involving the Indian Army and Jammu and Kashmir Police.
Investigators believe they are “self-reliant“, meaning they have enough food and supplies to stay hidden. This has reduced the chances of them needing outside help, especially from Pakistan, which New Delhi has directly accused of being involved in the incident.
The NIA has called this the worst terror attack since Pulwama in February 2019, where 40 soldiers were killed. There are growing demands that the Supreme Court intervene to examine failures of internal security and gaps in enforcement of anti-terror laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA).
Initial investigations revealed the terrorists had been present in Baisaran Valley — a popular tourist spot — for at least two days before the attack. Over Ground Workers (OGWs), who were questioned by the NIA, admitted that the terrorists had also surveyed other areas like Aru and Betaab valleys, but those were better protected.
So, they chose Baisaran, which was less guarded. This fact has led the opposition and legal commentators to raise serious concerns about negligence and failure of the State to provide basic protection under Article 21.
The intelligence community has informed that the attackers had access to advanced communication systems.
Retired defence expert Major General Yash Mor told media that,
these devices “did not need SIM cards and were capable of short-range encrypted transmissions”, making them extremely hard to track. Furthermore, “as many as three satellite phones were reportedly used by the terrorists, possibly to mask their positions and keep Indian security forces off guard till the attack, which began at 1.15 pm.”
The terrorists followed a simple yet devastating plan.
“Three terrorists sprang from hiding places around Baisaran to open fire at the tourists, while the fourth stayed hidden to provide back-up, if necessary.”
Investigators also suspect that other terrorists may still be in the area.
ALSO READ: Centre Transfers Pahalgam Terror Attack Probe to NIA | Massive Crackdown Begins
Disturbing reports have emerged of how the attackers interrogated some male victims before shooting them.
“Those who failed were shot at point-blank range.” Videos taken after the attack shocked the entire country. In one, women are seen covered in the blood of their loved ones, crying for help. One terrorist mocked a woman by saying, “Go tell (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi.”
The victims included a Nepali national, a newly married Navy officer on his honeymoon, a 70-year-old man from Andhra Pradesh, and a 35-year-old man from Karnataka, “who begged for his life.”
The global reaction has been one of horror and condemnation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a strong warning: “Terrorism’s evil agenda would not be allowed to succeed,” placing Pakistan and its terror networks on notice.
He also promised that,
India would take revenge “not just against those who pulled the triggers but also those who planned the attack.”
In the aftermath, India took strong diplomatic steps — including expelling Pakistani nationals and suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a vital water-sharing agreement that allows Pakistan access to over 80% of its water supply. In response, Pakistan also expelled Indian citizens and suspended the Simla Agreement. Airspaces between the two countries have been closed.
With tensions rising, the Supreme Court may soon be asked to rule on whether the government’s steps — including potential military action — comply with India’s constitutional framework. Legal experts believe that any military response must be proportional and in line with international humanitarian law.
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Modi chaired a high-level security meeting with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, NSA Ajit Doval, and Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan.
ALSO READ: 26/11 Mumbai Attacks | NIA Successfully Extradites Accused Tahawwur Rana from US
According to media sources,
“Mr Modi gave the armed forces the greenlight to plan and execute a counterattack.”
Meanwhile, Pakistan has continued to violate the ceasefire.
“This morning the Pak Army carried out unprovoked small arms fire in the Kupwara, Uri, and Akhnoor sectors, drawing a proportionate response from India.” This is “the seventh straight night of Pak fire.”
As the nation mourns, legal and constitutional scholars are calling for the Supreme Court to take an active role — whether through suo motu action or PIL — to ensure that India’s constitutional values, rights of victims, and national security obligations are upheld with transparency and accountability.
Click Here to Read More Reports On NIA Cases
