Wasting court's time: Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL against VD Savarkar portrait in parliament

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking the removal of portraits of Hindutva idealogue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from the Parliament of India and other public spaces [Balasundaram Balamurugan v. Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi warned the petitioner, retired Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer B Balamurugan, that the Court may impose heavy costs on him.The Court eventually allowed Balamurugan to withdraw the petition. "Please don’t indulge in all this. Enjoy your retirement now. Have some constructive role in society," CJI Kant added, while dismissing the petition as withdrawn. .Balamurugan's plea sought directions for the removal of Savarkar's portrait from the Indian Parliament's Central Hall and other public places, including official accommodations.Further, the plea also sought directions to restrain the government from honouring any person who were chargesheeted for heinous crimes, such as assassination or anti-national activities, and who has not been honourably acquitted..When the matter was taken up for hearing today, CJI Kant initially questioned Balamurgan's career trajectory, raising questions about his last posting before retirement and the circumstances in which he was denied promotions.CJI Kant asked if he had faced corruption charges. Balamurugan replied that there were no corruption allegations. He began to recount that he had faced departmental action after he held a hunger strike in 2009 for 'peace in Sri Lanka.'"I think this kind of frivolous petitions, (it shows) your mindset," CJI Kant replied. .The Bench then noted that Balamurugan, who wanted to personally argue the matter, was not physically present in Court. Instead, he sought to argue through video conference from Chennai. The petitioner added that financial constraints prevented him from appearing before the Supreme Court in Delhi. "You were in IRS. You can afford to come to Delhi and show yourself and argue. We'd like to impose exemplary costs on you. What do you think of yourself?" CJI Kant remarked. "This is for public interest," Balamurugan replied. "You deposit ₹1 lakh, so we can impose costs (if dismissed)..Then we will tell, what is the meaning of public interest. You are wasting the time of the courts. What do you want? You want us to impose costs or you want to withdraw silently?" CJI Kant eventually asked. .Following this exchange, Balamurgan said that he will withdraw the plea. The case was then closed. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.