The Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of portraits of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (V.D. Savarkar) from the Parliament building and other government institutions.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi came down heavily on the petitioner, a retired IRS officer, for filing what the Court termed a "frivolous petition" that wasted judicial time.
The petitioner, Balasundaram Balamurugan, appearing in person, argued that his plea was in the "public interest." However, the Bench was visibly unimpressed with the nature of the request, which ventured into the domain of legislative administration and political symbolism rather than constitutional law.
"What do you think of yourself?" The Chief Justice chastised the petitioner for the filing, remarking:
"When you are filing this kind of frivolous petition, we are seeing your mindset... we will impose costs on you. What do you think of yourself?"
When the petitioner persisted on the "public interest" angle, the CJI warned of imposing a cost of ₹1 Lakh to teach the meaning of genuine public interest litigation.
Faced with the imminent threat of a heavy financial penalty, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the plea. The Court permitted the withdrawal but not before offering a parting piece of advice to the retired officer:
"Enjoy your retirement now, have some constructive role in the society."
This dismissal reinforces the Supreme Court's growing intolerance for "Publicity Interest Litigation"—petitions filed under the guise of public interest that are either politically motivated, legally baseless, or seek to drag the judiciary into ideological disputes better left to the legislature or executive.
By rejecting the plea at the threshold, the Court has signaled that it will not act as a censor board for historical figures or parliamentary decor, nor will it indulge retirees seeking to fight ideological battles through the judicial process.