'Entry ban...': SC to petitioner who said Netaji secured independence
What's the story
The Supreme Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Pinakpani Mohanty, which sought to declare that India's independence was secured by the Indian National Army (INA) under Subhash Chandra Bose. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed that the petition appeared to be an attempt at publicity. It said that the court cannot delve into such issues.
Warning issued
'Entry band kar denge...': CJI Kant on petition
The court also warned Mohanty against filing such frivolous petitions in the future. It said the petitioner kept approaching the court repeatedly on this matter, despite a similar plea being dismissed in 2024. "You had earlier also filed a similar plea?" CJI Kant remarked. "Yeh baar alag hai (this one is different)," the petitioner replied.
Court
'Entry ban karwa denge tumhara'
However, the court refused to accept the plea further and cautioned that if the petitioner continued to file frivolous petitions, he would be barred from approaching the court. "Entry ban karwa denge tumhara Supreme Court mein ab. Pehle bhi same plea dismiss kar chuke hai (We'll ban you from the Supreme Court; a similar plea was dismissed earlier as well)," the court said.
Demands listed
Petition sought to declare Bose as 'National son'
The petition had sought several directions, including declaring Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose as the "National Son" and observing his birth anniversary as a national day. It also demanded that October 21, 1943, the INA's foundation day, be observed as a national day in honor of the 26,000 soldiers who sacrificed their lives for India's independence.
Petition dismissed
Court dismisses plea to declassify report on India's independence
It also sought directions to "declassify the actual truth report of Indian Independence in 1947." They include how Britishers left India and for what reasons, as well as the role of all Krantikaries (revolutionaries) who did not follow Ahimsa, among others. The court flatly refused to entertain the plea. "It seems to us that the petitioner indulges in such activities for popularity. The factual issues cannot be determined on the judicial side," the court said.