New Delhi, Jan. 13: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking the removal of portraits of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from Parliament and other public places, warning the petitioner that exemplary costs would be imposed for wasting judicial time.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing the PIL filed by retired Indian Revenue Service Officer B. Balamurugan. The Court ultimately permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea after strongly cautioning him.
“We’d like to impose exemplary costs on you. What do you think of yourself?” the Court remarked during the hearing, before the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the case.
Dismissing the petition as withdrawn, CJI Kant added, “Please don’t indulge in all this. Enjoy your retirement now. Have some constructive role in society.”
The petition had sought directions for the removal of Savarkar’s portrait from the Central Hall of Parliament as well as from other public places, including official accommodations. It also urged the Court to restrain the government from honouring individuals who had been charge sheeted for heinous offences such as assassination or anti-national activities, and who have not been honourably acquitted.
When the matter was taken up, the Chief Justice questioned the petitioner about his service record, asking about his last posting prior to retirement and whether he had faced any corruption allegations. Balamurugan responded that no such allegations existed and stated that departmental action had been initiated against him after he undertook a hunger strike in 2009 seeking “peace in Sri Lanka.”
Responding to this, CJI Kant observed, “I think this kind of frivolous petitions, (it shows) your mindset.”
The Bench also took note of the fact that the petitioner, who wished to argue the case in person, was not physically present in court and had instead sought to address the Bench via video conferencing from Chennai. Balamurugan cited financial difficulties as the reason for not travelling to Delhi.
“You were in the IRS. You can afford to come to Delhi and show yourself and argue. We’d like to impose exemplary costs on you. What do you think of yourself?” the Chief Justice remarked.
When Balamurugan insisted that the petition was filed “for public interest,” the Court responded sharply.
“You deposit ₹1 lakh, so we can impose costs (if dismissed).. Then we will tell, what is the meaning of public interest. You are wasting the time of the courts. What do you want? You want us to impose costs or you want to withdraw silently?” CJI Kant asked.
Following this exchange, the petitioner opted to withdraw the plea, upon which the Court closed the matter.
Picture credit social media
