The Supreme Court on Tuesday 13 January 2026 declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking the removal of portraits of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from Parliament and other public places. The Bench made it clear that courts cannot be used for what it called time-wasting exercises, warning the petitioner of heavy costs before permitting him to withdraw the plea.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by retired Indian Revenue Service officer Balasundaram Balamurugan against the Union of India and others. He sought directions to remove Savarkar’s portrait from the Central Hall of Parliament and other official premises.
Read also:- Registered Ownership Overrides Unproven Family Settlement Claims: Delhi High Court Rules
The matter came up before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi.
When the petitioner insisted that the matter was filed in public interest, the Chief Justice responded, “Deposit ₹1 lakh. Then we will tell you what the meaning of public interest is. You are wasting the time of the courts.”
Court’s Observations
The Bench made it clear that courts cannot be turned into platforms for ideological battles under the label of public interest litigation. According to the judges, PILs are meant to address genuine public causes, not personal or political disagreements.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Govt Job for False Criminal Disclosure, Says Honesty Non-Negotiable
Faced with the warning of a possible ₹1 lakh cost, the petitioner reconsidered his stand. The Court gave him a clear choice - withdraw the petition quietly or face financial consequences.
After a brief exchange, Balamurugan chose to withdraw his plea. The Bench then formally recorded the withdrawal and closed the case.
Read also:- Delhi HC Orders Removal of Bhuvan Bam’s Images, Refuses Early Finding on Personality Rights
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL as withdrawn after cautioning the petitioner against filing frivolous cases and warning of exemplary costs for wasting judicial time.
Case Title: Balasundaram Balamurugan v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1095 of 2025
