Today, On 27th May, Supreme Court rejects PIL seeking protection of Vinayak Savarkar’s name, stating no fundamental rights were violated. This verdict comes as relief for Rahul Gandhi amid ongoing debates over the misuse of Savarkar’s legacy.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition aimed at directing the establishment of certain facts regarding Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and preventing the misuse of his name.
A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih stated that there was no violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, thus the court could not intervene.
The petition was submitted by Dr. Pankaj Phadnis, who represented himself.
He requested that Savarkar’s name be added to the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, which is designed to prevent the improper use of specific emblems and names for professional and commercial purposes.
Phadnis stated,
“I am 65 years old. I have been researching him (Savarkar) for the last 30 years. I also request to issue directions for directions to Lok Sabha speaker to include his name in schedule to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Article 51A fundamental duties.. Leader of Opposition cannot impede my fundamental duties,”
The court responded,
“What is your fundamental right violation in this? We cannot entertain writs like this. We do not find any ground to intervene. The relief sought cannot be granted. Plea rejected.”
Recently, another bench of the Supreme Court criticized Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi for stating that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was a collaborator with the British who received a pension from them.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan remarked that Gandhi’s comments about the freedom fighter were irresponsible and warned that the court would initiate suo motu action if he made similar statements in the future.
However, the bench also stayed the summons issued to him by a Magistrate court regarding the remarks made in a criminal case against him for these controversial statements.
Article 51 of the Indian Constitution is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), which are non-enforceable guidelines for the government. It deals with promoting international peace and cooperation.
Promotion of international peace and security
The State shall endeavour to:
(a) promote international peace and security;
(b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and
(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
Key points:
- It urges the Indian government to promote peace and friendly relations between countries.
- It encourages respect for international laws and treaties.
- It promotes resolving conflicts through arbitration rather than war or force.
Article 51 is a Directive Principle, which means it is not enforceable by courts but guides the government in policy-making.
Also Read: Court Defers Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case to April 3: “Lawyers Were on Strike”
This defamation case is connected to comments made by Rahul Gandhi on November 17, 2022, while he was addressing a public gathering in Akola district of Maharashtra during his Bharat Jodo Yatra. During that speech, Rahul Gandhi allegedly made certain statements that were considered defamatory towards Savarkar.
The trial court indicated that Gandhi had referred to Savarkar as a British collaborator who received a pension, asserting that such remarks fostered hatred and discord within society.
Consequently, the court found a prima facie case against Gandhi and mandated his appearance.
In response, Gandhi challenged the summoning order in the High Court. He faces charges under Sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following a complaint filed by advocate Nripendra Pandey.
Pandey had initially sought to register a first information report (FIR) against Gandhi for his comments made on November 17, 2022, in which he labeled Savarkar as a collaborator with the British.
Pandey argued that Gandhi’s remarks were intended to incite societal hatred and emphasized that Mahatma Gandhi had once recognized Savarkar as a patriot.
In June 2023, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambrish Kumar Srivastava dismissed Pandey’s complaint, leading him to appeal to the sessions court.
Also Read: Rahul Gandhi Granted Bail in Savarkar Defamation Case by Pune Court
The sessions court subsequently accepted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Magistrate court, which then issued the summons to Gandhi.
Additionally, the Lucknow court recently fined Gandhi Rs.200 for failing to appear in the case.
Gandhi, who serves as the MP for Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh and is the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, has been linked to this case since April last year. Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Savarkar, filed a complaint in a magistrate court in Pune, alleging that Gandhi made defamatory remarks about Savarkar during a speech in London on March 5, 2023.
Case Title: PANKAJ KUMUDCHANDRA PHADNIS vs LEADER OF OPPOSITION IN THE LOK SABHA & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 552/2025