SC refuses to entertain PIL seeking removal of Savarkar portraits, warns of costs
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking the removal of portraits of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from Parliament and other public spaces, warning the petitioner of exemplary costs before allowing the plea to be withdrawn.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi cautioned the petitioner, retired Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer B Balamurugan, against filing what it described as a frivolous petition and indicated that heavy costs could be imposed for wasting the court’s time.
"This kind of frivolous petition… shows the mindset," the CJI said.
The bench was irked by the petitioner's submission that he could not come to argue the case in person because of financial constraints.
ALSO READ: Centre asks Blinkit, Zepto, Swiggy to stop 10-minute delivery claims: sources
"You were in the IRS. You can afford to come to Delhi and show yourself and argue. We would like to impose exemplary costs on you. What do you think of yourself?” the CJI said.
Balamurugan, in his PIL (public interest litigation), sought directions for the removal of portraits of the historical figure from the Central Hall of Parliament and other public spaces.
Additionally, the plea sought a direction to restrain the government from honouring individuals chargesheeted for heinous crimes such as assassination or anti-national activities unless they are acquitted.
During the hearing, the CJI questioned the petitioner’s background and service record, including his last posting before retirement and the circumstances under which he was denied promotions.
Asked whether he faced corruption charges, Balamurugan replied in the negative, stating instead that he had faced departmental action after undertaking a hunger strike in 2009 for “peace in Sri Lanka”.
Calling the petition an abuse of the judicial process, the bench asked the petitioner whether he wished to proceed or withdraw the case.
“Please don’t indulge in all this. Enjoy your retirement now. Have some constructive role in society,” the CJI remarked.
Sensing the outcome, Balamurugan sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC asks states to treat rising child trafficking cases as grave; seeks coordinated action
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has voiced grave concern over rising cases of child trafficking, saying gangs are operating across the country and if States and Union territories do not take immediate action, thing will go beyond control.
The court said only the state government and its home department can act vigilantly in this regard.
“As a court we can monitor, but ultimately the action has to be on the part of the state government, the police, and other agencies. Therefore, this is our humble request”, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said during the hearing of a plea on Wednesday.
The bench was irked over the "lackadaisical" approach of several states and UTs in implementing a 2025 judgment aimed at dismantling organised trafficking networks.
Justice Viswanathan said the retrieval of children in some cases proves the problem can be tackled, but it requires a level of political and administrative will which is lacking at present.
The verdict, delivered on April 15, 2025, had mandated several institutional reforms, including completion of trials in trafficking cases within six months on a day-to-day basis.
It had also directed strengthening of Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) and improving investigation standards.
Besides asking for setting up of state-level committees to monitor vulnerable trafficking hotspots, it had asked the authorities to treat missing children cases as trafficking unless proven otherwise.
Earlier, the bench had termed the compliance reports filed by a few states as "nothing but an eye wash."
On Wednesday, the bench noted that Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Haryana, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Odisha, and Punjab had still failed to file reports in the prescribed format.
When the home secretary of Madhya Pradesh offered an apology for the lapse, the bench granted a "final opportunity" but warned that continued failure would lead to states being officially branded as "defaulting".
The bench noted that at least 15 states are yet to constitute review committees mandated to identify and monitor trafficking-prone areas.
The matter will now be heard on April 29.
