The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of portraits of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from the Parliament and other public spaces, warning the petitioner that he could be saddled with high costs for filing a frivolous plea.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was hearing the petition filed by retired Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer B Balamurugan. The court eventually permitted him to withdraw the plea.
“Please don’t indulge in all this. Enjoy your retirement now. Have some constructive role in society,” CJI Kant remarked while dismissing the petition as withdrawn.
The petition sought directions for the removal of Savarkar’s portrait from the Central Hall of Parliament and other public places, including official accommodations. It also sought a restraint on the government from honouring any person who has been charge sheeted for heinous crimes such as assassination or anti-national activities and has not been honourably acquitted.
At the outset of the hearing, the CJI questioned Balamurugan about his service career, including his last posting prior to retirement and the circumstances in which he was allegedly denied promotions. The court also asked whether he had faced any corruption charges, to which Balamurugan replied in the negative. He then sought to explain that departmental action had been initiated against him after he undertook a hunger strike in 2009 for “peace in Sri Lanka”.
“I think this kind of frivolous petition reflects your mindset,” the bench responded while also taking note of the fact that Balamurugan, who wished to argue the matter in person, was not physically present in court and was seeking to appear via video conferencing from Chennai.
When Balamurugan insisted that the petition was filed “in public interest”, the court remained unconvinced. “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?” the bench asked.
Following the exchange, Balamurugan sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the bench allowed, closing the case.
Editorial Context & Insight
Original analysis and synthesis with multi-source verification
Methodology
This article includes original analysis and synthesis from our editorial team, cross-referenced with multiple primary sources to ensure depth, accuracy, and balanced perspective. All claims are fact-checked and verified before publication.
Editorial Team
Senior Editor
James Chen
Specializes in India coverage
Quality Assurance
Associate Editor
Fact-checking and editorial standards compliance
