Supreme Court Rejects PIL for Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose 'National Son' Declaration
The Supreme Court of India on Monday firmly dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to have freedom fighter Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose officially recognised as the country's 'national son'. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, expressed strong disapproval of the petition, noting it was refiled 'only to gain publicity' and falls outside the proper scope of judicial review.
Petitioner's Demands and Court's Response
The petitioner had requested the court to issue directions for several declarations, including:
- That Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army (INA) secured India's independence.
- That October 21, the INA foundation day, and January 23, Netaji's birth anniversary, be marked as national days.
However, the bench observed that a similar plea had already been dismissed by the top court in the past. The judges emphasised that such matters should be addressed to the appropriate government authority, not the judiciary, as they involve policy decisions beyond legal purview.
Strong Warning Against Frivolous Petitions
In a stern rebuke, CJI Surya Kant cautioned the petitioner against filing such 'frivolous petitions' in the future. The court directed the Supreme Court Registry to not entertain any PILs filed by this petitioner on similar issues going forward. The CJI explicitly warned, 'Ab aap jaiye, nahi toh aur cost laga denge (Now you should leave, otherwise we will impose further costs).'
Historical Context of Similar Petitions
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with such requests concerning Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. In 2022, a bench then headed by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala dismissed a similar plea that sought to declare a national holiday on Netaji's birth anniversary. Justice Chandrachud had remarked that such decisions lie with the government, not the courts.
He further observed that the best way to honour Netaji's contributions is by 'working hard just like he worked hard for independence,' and cautioned against misusing the court's jurisdiction for such petitions. This precedent underscores the judiciary's consistent stance on maintaining the separation of powers and avoiding entanglement in non-justiciable matters.
The dismissal reinforces the Supreme Court's role in focusing on legal and constitutional issues, while leaving celebratory and honorary declarations to the executive branch. It serves as a reminder to petitioners to approach the courts with substantive legal grievances rather than symbolic or publicity-driven pleas.
