“Supreme Court Labels ‘INDIA’ Acronym PIL a ‘Publicity Stunt’, Dismisses Plea”
The Supreme Court, in a recent hearing, declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought to restrain 26 opposition parties from using the acronym I.N.D.I.A, which stands for Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, for their alliance. The court’s stance was clear when it remarked that the petition seemed to be a mere “publicity stunt.”
The petitioner’s advocate, in a fervent plea before the bench of Justices S K Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, contended,
“There was a race underway in the country to prove nationalist credentials.”
The court, in its response, posed a question to the petitioner’s counsel, asking,
“How the judiciary could prevent said race from going on?”
Emphasizing the jurisdictional boundaries, the bench further advised that if there were any violations of election norms, the appropriate course of action would be to “approach the Election Commission of India (ECI).” The bench was candid in its observation, stating that the petition had
“been filed for publicity and for nothing else.”
In the backdrop of this legal tussle, 26 opposition parties, led prominently by the Congress, made a significant political move last month. They announced their collective decision to unite and present a formidable challenge to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. As part of this alliance, they declared their intention to rally under the banner of I.N.D.I.A.
However, this isn’t the first legal challenge the opposition’s choice of acronym has faced. The Delhi High Court had earlier, on August 4, issued a notice to these 26 opposition parties and the Election Commission of India regarding a similar PIL. This petition aimed to restrict the opposition from using the I.N.D.I.A acronym. The Division Bench of the High Court, led by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Amit Mahajan, sought responses from both the political entities and the election commission. The crux of the petition, filed by activist Girish Bharadwaj, was that
“the use of name INDIA is prohibited under Sections 2 and 3 of The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950.”
As the political temperature in the country rises with the nearing Lok Sabha elections, this issue surrounding the use of the ‘I.N.D.I.A‘ acronym adds another layer of intrigue. The coming days will reveal how this legal and political drama unfolds and its potential implications on the electoral battlefield.
