NEW DELHI, May 27: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking directions that the name of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is not misused and his name be included in the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act.
A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the plea, saying no fundamental right of the petitioner was affected.
Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, petitioner-in-person Pankaj Phadnavis said the court must allow him to set right and establish certain historical facts concerning Savarkar to stop misunderstandings about him.
The petition had arraigned the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha as a party respondent. The LoP, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was recently cautioned by the Supreme Court for his remarks against Savarkar. Mr Gandhi had reportedly remarked that the Hindutva ideologue had addressed himself as a “most obedient servant” to the colonial British authorities in his letters. The remarks were made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2024.
On April 24, the Supreme Court, while staying trial court summons issued to Mr Gandhi on the basis of a complaint filed about his remarks, had criticised him for making “irresponsible” comments against freedom fighters like Savarkar. The Bench had even warned that Mr Gandhi would not get similar interim relief if he repeated the act.
The petitioner sought directions that the Leader of Opposition do community service as punishment for his remarks against Savarkar. Dr Phadnavis, who was appearing in person, told the bench that he had been researching on Savarkar for years and wanted to establish certain facts about Savarkar in a legally verifiable manner.
The CJI then asked him, “What is the violation of your fundamental right?” The petitioner said that the Leader of the Opposition cannot violate fundamental duties: “Article 51A, fundamental duties. The Leader of the Opposition cannot impede my fundamental duties.”
The CJI refused to intervene in the issue, saying an Article 32 petition can be entertained only for the violation of fundamental rights. The petition stated that Mr Gandhi is in the habit of making “irresponsible, immature and defamatory comments” about Savarkar.
The Bench questioned whether any of his fundamental rights under the Constitution had been violated, prompting him to approach the apex court in a writ petition. “We cannot entertain writ petitions like this. We do not find any ground to intervene. The relief sought cannot be granted. Plea rejected,” Chief Justice Gavai recorded, dismissing the case.
(Manas Dasgupta)
