Today(on 14th May),The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking guidelines to curb politicians’ exploitation of national icons and freedom fighters. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta deemed the plea politically motivated and targeting a specific individual.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 14th May),The Supreme Court rejected a petition requesting guidelines to prevent politicians from exploiting national icons and freedom fighters for personal benefit. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, on the bench, labeled the plea politically motivated and aimed at singling out a particular individual.
Expressing dismay over the court’s politicization, the bench questioned-
“Why has the court become a venue for political contention? Your petition seems to specifically target an individual.”
Subsequently, the petitioner chose to withdraw the plea. The petition, filed as a public interest litigation (PIL), raised objections to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal‘s use of images of late Bhagat Singh and Dr. BR Ambedkar as a backdrop during political addresses. The petitioner, a professor at the Indian Institute of Information Technology in Sonepat, urged the court to establish guidelines to prevent politicians from appropriating national icons and freedom fighters for personal gain.
ALSO READ:BREAKING| Legal Services by Lawyers Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court
According to the plea-
“The basic right to freedom of speech and expression should not permit individuals to misuse the names or images of national icons and freedom fighters for personal advantage. The petitioner found it deeply troubling to witness a current politician comparing his own image with those of unquestionable national heroes and icons.”
The petitioner further argued that the misuse of images of freedom fighters, as done by Kejriwal and his wife, diminishes the significance of the sacrifice made by these martyrs. The plea clarified that the petitioner had no personal grievance against the Chief Minister of Delhi, his political party, or any other individual or association.
The PIL was filed through advocate Pooja Dhar, while advocate Rohan Thawani represented the petitioner-professor.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to entertain the plea reflects its stance on the matter, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in addressing issues related to the use of national icons by politicians. While the court acknowledges the importance of freedom of speech and expression, it emphasizes the responsibility that comes with it, particularly when it involves the use of revered figures from the nation’s history.
The plea raises valid concerns about the potential misuse and appropriation of national icons for personal gains. National icons and freedom fighters hold a significant place in the hearts and minds of the citizens, representing the ideals and sacrifices that shaped the nation. It is essential to preserve their legacy and ensure that their images and names are not exploited for political purposes or commercial interests.
The petitioner’s argument that the equating of a contemporary politician’s image with that of national heroes and icons is unsettling holds merit. Such actions can be seen as an attempt to associate oneself with the revered figures, potentially diluting their significance and reducing them to mere political tools. This not only disrespects the memory of these great individuals but also undermines the values they stood for.
ALSO READ: [Electoral Bonds Scheme Row] Two NGO Request Listing in SC of PIL on Court-Monitored SIT Probe
While freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right in any democratic society, it is crucial to strike a balance between individual expression and the collective respect for national icons. Guidelines can play a vital role in ensuring that politicians exercise caution and sensitivity when using images or names associated with national heroes. These guidelines should aim to prevent any misuse or exploitation while preserving the integrity of the freedom struggle and the legacy of these icons.
Case Title:
Dr Vinay Pathak vs Union of India