Supreme Court rejects Abhinav Bharat Congress plea challenging Bombay Public Security Measures (Delhi Amendment) Act

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on a petition filed by Abhinav Bharat Congress, which sought directions to declare the Bombay Public Security Measures (Delhi Amendment) Act, 1948 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

The Bench of Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while expressing its strong displeasure over the nature of prayers sought in the plea on Friday, called it the ‘most misconceived petition’ filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

While observing that anyone could not walk into the Supreme Court with any prayer they wanted under Article 32 and waste the time of this Court, the Bench dismissed the plea with a cost of Rs 25000.

The Bench said it was still showing some concession as the petition was filed by a party in person and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 25000 with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner initially said that he was not very happy with the prayers, but then it was the petitioner's ‘personal matter’. 

He further said that he would argue on the legal point on whether the hanging suffered from illegality, haste and malafide. The lawyer argued that he could show the maladies in the case.

However, the Apex Court remained dissatisfied with his submission and questioned the Advocate whether he wanted to show the malafide of the incident after 75 years. 

The Bench, while noting that there could be different views or social issues on Vir Savarkar, directed the lawyer not to come up with a petition under Article 32 to get certificates from this court.

The Counsel clarified that the present petition was not about Savarkar or Godse, but about Narayan Apte.

Filed by President of Abhinav Bharat Congress, Dr. Pankaj K Phadnis, the petition alleged that application of the Bombay Public Security Measures (Delhi Amendment) Act, 1948 in the Mahatma Gandhi Assassination case resulted in a mistrial.

It further sought directions to the Union Government to form an empowerment Committee of eminent persons, including representatives of Abhinav Bharat, to give Overseas Scholarship to meritorious students for undertaking post graduate studies as envisaged by Veer Savarkar in 1944, in ‘partial atonement’ of injustice done to Savarkar. 

The plea further sought direction to respondents to issue a Public Apology to the younger brother of Manorama Salvi Apte, Dr. Balchandra Daulatrao Salvi, for the ‘custodial’ murder of his brother-in-law, Narayan Apte.

(Case title: Rex vs Nathuram Godse and Ors)