The Supreme Court of India on May 27 rejected a plea seeking the inclusion of VD Savarkar’s name in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1956.

The petitioner, Pankaj Phadnis, who appeared in person, argued that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s comments against Savarkar violated fundamental duties. He contended that as a citizen, his fundamental duties under Article 51A were being impeded by such remarks.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih dismissed the petition, stating:

“No fundamental right of the petitioner is shown to have been violated.”

When the hearing began, Phadnis claimed that he had been researching Savarkar for years and wished to "establish certain facts about Mr. Savarkar in a legally verifiable manner." However, the bench questioned him:

"What is the violation of your fundamental right?"

Phadnis responded that the Leader of Opposition could not violate fundamental duties. To this, the CJI replied:

“An Article 32 petition can be entertained only for the violation of fundamental rights.”

The bench clarified that if Phadnis wanted something about Savarkar to be included in school curricula, he should approach the Union of India. Phadnis mentioned that he had already submitted such a representation.

The court concluded that the reliefs sought by Phadnis could not be granted under an Article 32 petition. As a result, the petition was dismissed.

It’s essential to understand that the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1956, prohibits the use of any name included in its schedule in a manner contrary to the conditions prescribed by the Central Government.

Recently, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta also criticized comments made by Rahul Gandhi against Savarkar, though that was a separate matter.

Case : PANKAJ KUMUDCHANDRA PHADNIS vs LEADER OF OPPOSITION IN THE LOK SABHA & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 552/2025