The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a judicial declaration that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army (INA) were responsible for securing India’s independence. While dismissing the plea, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued a stern warning to the petitioner, Pinakpani Mohanty, citing a pattern of “popularity-seeking” litigation.
The petitioner had approached the apex court seeking various declarations, including naming Netaji the “National Son” and officially recognizing key INA-related dates as national observances.
Court’s Observations on ‘Reckless’ Litigation
During the proceedings, the bench expressed significant displeasure over the repetitive nature of the petitions filed by Mohanty. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked on the petitioner’s history of filing similar cases, stating, “Supreme Court me entry band kar denge (We will bar your entry into the Supreme Court).”
The court noted that Mohanty had previously filed a PIL in 2024 seeking an inquiry into the death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. In that instance, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan questioned the petitioner’s motives and asked about the timing of the filing in relation to elections.
Although Mohanty claimed he was acting independently in the interest of human rights, the court remained unconvinced. The bench noted that reckless allegations were being made against deceased national figures, including Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, and questioned how such claims could be made so loosely.
Previous Rulings and the Issue of Netaji’s Ashes
The dismissal follows a recent decision by the Supreme Court regarding the repatriation of Netaji’s ashes from the Renkō‑ji Temple in Tokyo. In that case, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the petitioner, requested the court’s intervention so that Netaji’s daughter, Anita Bose Pfaff, could perform last rites in India.
In that matter, CJI Surya Kant’s bench expressed hesitation, questioning the frequency with which this issue was being brought before the court despite the nation’s collective respect for Netaji’s sacrifice. That petition was eventually withdrawn after the court suggested that the legal heirs themselves should lead the pursuit of any specific legal action.
In the present case, the court concluded that the PIL was an attempt to gain popularity rather than a genuine effort toward public interest. Consequently, the court directed the Registry not to entertain any further writ petitions filed by Mohanty claiming to be in the public interest.
The court’s order emphasized that the petition was a repetitive attempt to gain attention and had been rejected in similar forms previously.
