On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the inclusion of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's name in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The petitioner also sought directions to prevent the alleged misuse of Savarkar’s name and to impose community service as punishment on the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, for his remarks against Savarkar.
The petitioner, Dr. Pankaj Phadnis, appearing in person, submitted that he had been researching on Savarkar for years and intended to establish certain facts about him in a legally verifiable manner. He contended that Rahul Gandhi had made defamatory remarks about Savarkar and was in the habit of making “irresponsible, immature and defamatory comments” against him.
In his petition, Dr. Phadnis prayed that Savarkar’s name be added to the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, arguing that such inclusion would prevent any misuse of his name. Under the Act, names and emblems listed in the schedule cannot be used contrary to conditions prescribed by the Central Government.
Further, the petitioner sought a direction that Gandhi be made to perform community service, specifically, sweeping the floor of the Savarkar Museum in Mumbai for a day, as a form of punishment for his allegedly defamatory comments, instead of facing penal consequences.
Dr. Phadnis asserted that the Leader of Opposition cannot violate fundamental duties as enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution. He submitted that such remarks impede his ability to perform his own fundamental duties. “Article 51A, fundamental duties. The Leader of the Opposition cannot impede my fundamental duties,” he stated before the bench.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice asked, “What is the violation of your fundamental right?” indicating that the petition failed to establish any infringement of fundamental rights.
The Court emphasized that a petition under Article 32 is maintainable only in cases involving the violation of fundamental rights and refused to entertain the plea on the ground that no such violation was demonstrated.
Finding no merit in the petition, the bench dismissed the same. The Court held that no fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated, and thus, no grounds existed for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Source Link
Picture Source :
