The Supreme Court on Tuesday took a stern view of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of portraits of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from the Parliament House and other public spaces. The Apex Court refused to entertain the plea, warning the petitioner—a retired IRS officer—that pursuing such “frivolous” litigation could invite heavy financial costs.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi advised the petitioner to play a constructive role in society rather than engaging in such legal battles.
“Enjoy Your Retirement”
The petition, filed by retired Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer B. Balamurugan, was ultimately withdrawn after the bench made it clear that it was not inclined to hear the matter and was considering imposing costs.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant remarked, “Please don’t indulge in all this. Enjoy your retirement now. Have some constructive role in society.”
The court characterized the petition as a waste of judicial time. When the petitioner attempted to argue that the matter was filed in “public interest,” the bench retorted, “Deposit ₹1 lakh so that we can impose costs if the petition is dismissed. Then we will explain what public interest means. You are wasting the time of the court. What do you want — costs or to withdraw silently?”
Faced with the warning of monetary penalties, Balamurugan sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed, closing the case.
Background and Petitioner’s Arguments
Balamurugan, who appeared via video conferencing from Chennai, had sought specific directions for the removal of Savarkar’s portraits from the Central Hall of Parliament, official accommodations, and other public places.
Furthermore, the plea sought a broader restraint on the Union Government, arguing that it should be barred from honouring any individual who had been charge-sheeted for heinous crimes—such as assassination or anti-national activities—and had not been honourably acquitted.
Court Questions Petitioner’s Service Record
At the outset, the bench scrutinized the petitioner’s background. CJI Kant questioned Balamurugan about his service career, specifically asking about his last posting before retirement and the circumstances surrounding his alleged denial of promotions.
The Court also probed whether the petitioner had faced corruption charges. While Balamurugan denied facing corruption charges, he admitted that departmental action had been initiated against him in the past. He explained that this action stemmed from a hunger strike he undertook in 2009 advocating for “peace in Sri Lanka.”
Dismissing the validity of the plea based on these antecedents and the nature of the prayer, the bench observed, “I think this kind of frivolous petition reflects your mindset.”
The matter was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.
