New Delhi, January 13, 2026: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by retired IRS officer B Balamurugan, which sought the removal of portraits of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from the Parliament and other public spaces. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, ultimately permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea.

Court Calls PIL Frivolous

During the hearing, the bench strongly criticised the PIL, cautioning the petitioner that pursuing frivolous pleas could attract significant costs. CJI Kant remarked, “Please don’t indulge in all this. Enjoy your retirement now. Have some constructive role in society,” underscoring the court’s view that the petition lacked substantive merit.

The bench observed that the petition seemed reflective of the petitioner’s mindset rather than genuine public interest. The court further pressed Balamurugan on his service record, asking about his last posting, promotions, and whether he faced any corruption charges, all of which were clarified by him.

Background of the Petition

Balamurugan had sought directions to remove Savarkar’s portrait from the Central Hall of Parliament, official government accommodations, and other public spaces. The petition also requested that the government refrain from honouring individuals who had been charge-sheeted for crimes such as assassination or anti-national activities without being honourably acquitted.

At the outset, the petitioner explained that he had filed the PIL in public interest, citing previous grievances including departmental action following his 2009 hunger strike for “peace in Sri Lanka.” However, the court was not persuaded, noting that the petition did not constitute a legitimate public interest matter.

Court Offers Option to Withdraw

When Balamurugan sought to argue the matter via video conference from Chennai, the bench highlighted procedural concerns and offered him a choice: deposit ₹1 lakh to be liable for costs if the petition failed, or withdraw the petition quietly. The petitioner opted to withdraw, and the court formally closed the matter.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasised that not all matters can be claimed as “public interest,” particularly when the petition lacks legal merit or fails to raise enforceable rights.
• The court’s stern tone reflects a broader intent to discourage misuse of judicial time and resources through frivolous PILs.
• While the petition touched upon contentious issues surrounding Savarkar’s legacy and historical controversies, the court signalled that such matters, in the absence of clear legal grounds, do not warrant intervention.

The case has now been formally closed, with the petitioner withdrawing the PIL under the court’s guidance.