The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the installation of the National Emblem on the dome of the apex court’s building. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the prayer involves matters of architectural and symbolic significance that fall strictly within the court’s administrative jurisdiction.
The petition was moved by Badaravada Venugopal, also known as ‘Bada Khatarnak,’ who appeared in person before the bench. The petitioner sought a judicial direction for the placement of the National Emblem atop the iconic Supreme Court structure.
The petitioner informed the court that he had initially raised this concern with the Chief Justice’s office in May 2025. He noted that he received a formal response on November 27, 2025, which clarified that the Supreme Court currently utilizes its own distinct and unique emblem for official purposes.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized that judicial petitions are not the appropriate vehicle for addressing internal architectural or symbolic requirements.
Addressing the petitioner’s previous correspondence, the CJI noted that the administrative response received in late November was issued just as his tenure began. “The previous administrative decision was passed before my tenure began on November 24, 2025,” the CJI remarked, indicating that the matter could be revisited through the proper channels.
The bench highlighted that the Supreme Court is currently expanding its infrastructure. “We are constructing a new building; we will deal with it then,” the CJI stated at the outset of the proceedings, suggesting that symbolic requirements would be considered during the design and construction phase of the new complex.
The Court declined to exercise its judicial powers to intervene in the matter, reiterating that the petitioner should have pursued the issue through administrative correspondence rather than litigation.
“This issue you could write to me on the administrative side, instead of filing a petition,” the CJI told the petitioner. “We will see what is to be done. Please do not file petitions on the judicial side.”
The bench directed the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to “put an appropriate note before the competent authority (the CJI)” so that the matter could be examined on the administrative side.
