The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking directions to prevent the alleged improper use of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s name, and to include it in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected the petition by Dr Pankaj Phadnis, stating that no fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated, which is a necessary condition for the top court to entertain a petition invoking Article 32 of the Constitution.

Advertisement

Phadnis, appearing in person, claimed that he had been researching Savarkar for years and wanted to establish certain historical facts in a “legally verifiable manner”. He also urged the Court to direct the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to perform community service — specifically, sweeping the floor of the Savarkar Museum in Mumbai — as punishment for his allegedly defamatory comments about Savarkar.

When asked by the Chief Justice Gavai what fundamental right of Phadnis was violated, the petitioner invoked Article 51A, arguing that his fundamental duties as a citizen were being obstructed by the actions of the Leader of Opposition.

Phadnis said that the Leader of Opposition cannot violate fundamental duties, stating, “Article 51A outlines the fundamental duties. Leader of the opposition cannot impede my fundamental duties.”

However, the bench pointed out that the Article 32 petition can only be entertained for the violation of a fundamental right, and fundamental duties are not enforceable under Article 32.

The petition alleged that Gandhi had a pattern of making “irresponsible, immature and defamatory” comments about Savarkar. It cited his past conviction in a criminal defamation case and proposed community service as a symbolic alternative to penal punishment.

Phadnis also sought the inclusion of Savarkar’s name in the Schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, which prohibits the misuse of names and symbols listed therein. Once a name is included, it cannot be used contrary to conditions prescribed by the Central government.

The Court, however, found no merit in the plea and dismissed it summarily.