Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Include Savarkar's Name in Emblems Act: What it Means

India's Supreme Court has rejected a plea requesting Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's name be included in the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Find out why the apex court dismissed the petition and the legal implications

New Delhi, India – In a move that reiterates the apex court's strict adherence to legal procedure, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition seeking to include the name of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The decision, delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, underscored that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution can only be entertained if a fundamental right of the petitioner is shown to have been violated.

The petitioner, Pankaj Phadnavis, who appeared in person, argued that his plea was aimed at "establishing certain historical facts" about Savarkar to prevent misunderstandings about his legacy. During the proceedings, Phadnavis, a long-time researcher on Savarkar, contended that it was his "fundamental duty" under Article 51A of the Constitution to undertake this task and that remarks made by political figures, including the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, were impeding his duties. It's pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court had earlier cautioned Rahul Gandhi for what it termed "irresponsible" comments against Savarkar.

However, the bench remained firm, questioning Phadnavis directly: "What is the violation of your fundamental right?" The judges stressed that while the petitioner's intent might be to clarify historical narratives, an Article 32 petition is specifically meant to address the violation of fundamental rights. Finding no such violation in this particular case, the bench stated, "We cannot entertain writ petitions like this. We do not find any ground to intervene. The relief sought cannot be granted. Plea rejected."

The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, is a specific legislation designed to prevent the improper use of certain national emblems and names, primarily for professional or commercial purposes. By seeking Savarkar's inclusion in this Act, the petitioner's objective was seemingly to accord a protective legal status to his name against perceived misuse.

While the Supreme Court's dismissal does not delve into the historical debate surrounding Savarkar, it clearly articulates the judicial limitations of a direct writ petition on matters that do not infringe upon a citizen's fundamental rights. The court suggested that if the petitioner wished for Savarkar's contributions to be included in educational curricula or authoritative records, the appropriate course of action would be to make a representation to the Union of India, a step Phadnavis indicated he had already taken. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the precise legal framework within which such matters are considered by India's highest court.