Latest news with #AbhinavBharatCongress
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Savarkar Sadan file on heritage status lost in 2012 Mantralaya fire: State to HC
MUMBAI: The papers pertaining to the according of heritage status to Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's Dadar residence, Savarkar Sadan, were lost in the 2012 Mantralaya fire, claimed the state government in its response to the public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Bombay high court on the issue. In the 1980s and early 1990s, three floors were added to the two-storey bungalow courtesy the regime of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), which enabled developers to construct floors above existing buildings The reply submitted to the high court says, '...further action in the present matter could not be carried out as the relevant government records pertaining to this case were destroyed in the fire that occurred on 21.06.2012 on the fourth floor of Mantralaya, where the urban development department is situated.' The state claimed that it had taken efforts to look for and recreate the destroyed files and records from the available secondary records and sources, including correspondence with other departments and offices. 'However, despite taking all possible steps... the documents could not be traced, which seems to have caused a constraint in proceeding further with the subject matter,' says the reply. The BMC had given its final recommendation for heritage status for Savarkar's home in August 2010, and had forwarded this to the state government's urban development department. After the fire, the civic body on July 31, 2012, through a public notice, decided to revise the draft list of heritage buildings and precincts. Savarkar Sadan did not find a place in it. After Hindustan Times reported on May 5, 2025 that Savarkar's erstwhile residence was to be pulled down shortly to make way for a new building, a PIL was filed by Prof Pankaj Phadnis of the Abhinav Bharat Congress to revive the plea to accord heritage status. Commenting on the state's submission in court wherein the Mantralaya fire and the civic body were blamed, Phadnis told Hindustan Times, 'This charade must end. If the file was lost in a fire, nothing stops the government from getting the papers from the BMC... instead, the government has resorted to machinations by asking the BMC to take a fresh look. The obvious intention is to benefit the builder, who would now have the locus to raise an objection if public notices were to be reissued.' Lambasting the BJP-led government in the state, the petitioner added that he believed that the government's view was that the lot of the Savarkar family was only to suffer while everyone else made merry. Savarkar Sadan was constructed as a two-storey bungalow in 1938 on a plot measuring around 405 square metres in Dadar's Shivaji Park. Savarkar, founder of Abhinav Bharat Society, a secret grouping of Hindutva activists, and a leading figure in the Hindu Mahasabha, a political party, lived here. He met several top leaders at the bungalow, including Subhas Chandra Bose in 1940, and Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte in 1948, before they left for Delhi to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi. Savarkar's descendants continued to live in the building after his death in 1966. In the 1980s and early 1990s, three floors were added to the two-storey bungalow courtesy the regime of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), which enabled developers to construct floors above existing buildings.
Hindustan Times
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC rejects PIL on Rahul Gandhi's comments on Savarkar
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging that Congress leader and the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, had made 'immature and irresponsible' remarks about Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The petitioner Pankaj Phadnis, co-founder of Abhinav Bharat Congress, had also urged the court to include Savarkar's name in the schedule to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act. HC rejects PIL on Rahul Gandhi's comments on Savarkar The Supreme Court had, on May 27, rejected a similar petition filed by Phadnis, which contended that Gandhi was violating fundamental duties by making comments against Savarkar. In the PIL filed in the high court, Phadnis complained about Gandhi's remark dated May 28, 2025, when he said that Savarkar considered Muslims and Christians as traitors. Legal proceedings were initiated to ensure that the distorted history peddled by Gandhi and his cohorts was corrected and young Indians knew true facts about their past, the petition said. Disposing of the petition, the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne raised questions on how the court could compel the respondent to read Phadnis' petition. It suggested the petitioner seek legal recourse by filing a defamation suit against Gandhi, if needed. A special MP/MLA court in Pune is already hearing a criminal defamation case against Gandhi filed by Satyaki Savarkar, grand nephew of Vinayak Savarkar.
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Savarkar remarks: HC refuses to issue directions to Rahul
Mumbai: Bombay high court has declined to issue any direction to opposition leader on his utterances against late Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. "This court cannot issue any direction to respondent no 1 (Gandhi) to study the contents of this public interest litigation and to remove ignorance about the contribution of Shri Vinayak Savarkar,'' said Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The PIL was by Pankaj Phadnis, president of Abhinav Bharat Congress, a policy think tank, saying his legal rights as well as that of a large number of citizens to fulfil their fundamental duty under Article 51A(b) was impeded by Gandhi's statements about Savarkar. Article 51A(b) focuses on the duty 'to cherish and follow noble ideals that inspired our national struggle for freedom.' Phadnis referred to Gandhi's May 28 statement that Savarkar considered Muslims traitors. He referred to a Feb 8, 1944, US consulate interview in which Savarkar said the aim of the Hindu Mahasabha is to preserve the integrity of India and its Hindu character with due regard to the rights of all minorities including the Muslims. "Such a man cannot be considered a traitor," said Phadnis. He said the late PM Indira Gandhi praised Savarkar's daring defiance of the British govt. Phadnis had urged HC to direct Gandhi "to personally go through the contents of this petition …to remove ignorance about the contribution of Savarkar to the…nation and to provide proof of his study by a reasoned reply." The judges asked whether they could compel Gandhi to read his petition. Phadnis said, "Leader of the opposition in a democracy can potentially be tomorrow a prime minister. Such a person with this knowledge will create havoc. He cannot misrepresent and mislead citizens. He is creating confusion." The judges noted that Phadnis' petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on May 27. A defamation case against Gandhi is pending before a Pune magistrate. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Phadnis can take "recourse to such remedy as may be available in law to ventilate his grievances," the judges said. Phadnis had also urged the Centre to include Savarkar's name in the schedule to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Use) Act. Declining to issue any direction, the judges said HC cannot issue a writ to the legislature either to amend the law to include Savarkar's name in the schedule.
Hindustan Times
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Clear stand on heritage tag for Savarkar Sadan: HC to State
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday directed the state government to clarify its stand on granting heritage status to Savarkar Sadan, the erstwhile residence of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in Shivaji Park. The direction was issued while the division bench of justices AS Chandurkar and Dr Neela Gokhale was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by self-proclaimed public policy think tank Abhinav Bharat Congress. The PIL, filed in view of the imminent razing of the building for a redevelopment project, seeks heritage status and 'monument of national importance' tag for the building, alongside a special compensation policy for its inhabitants. On Friday, Abhinav Bharat Congress representative Pankaj Phadnis submitted a letter to the court issued by the deputy municipal architect of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation in 2012. The letter stated that the under-secretary of the urban development had in 2009 approved a proposal to include Savarkar Sadan in the heritage list and a notice was accordingly issued inviting suggestions and objections from the public. The proposal was then sent to the principal secretary, the letter stated, although no notification was issued thereafter. As reported by HT on May 5, Savarkar Sadan, which houses a mini museum dedicated to Savarkar on the ground floor, may be razed as some property owners are in talks with a builder for redeveloping the property. Two adjacent plots are likely to be amalgamated for the redevelopment project – one houses Laxmi Sadan, where renowned classical vocalist Pandit Jitendra Abhisheki once resided, while the other faces the Shivaji Park. The petition cited the HT report, stating, '...the petitioner was startled to see a report in a prominent newspaper about imminent demolition of Savarkar Sadan quoting three reliable sources.' It refers to the high court's directions to the BMC in October 2008 to decide on heritage status for Savarkar Sadan within 12 weeks. The Heritage Conservation Committee also recommended the same, the petition notes, stating, 'It is ironic that 17 years later, the same argument has to be repeated.' 'The status of the said property shall not be changed and the position as prevailing today shall be maintained,' the court said in its order on Friday.
Hindustan Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
'You go to Parliament': Supreme Court rejects plea seeking Article 142 powers for high courts
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by NGO Abhinav Bharat Congress, which sought the apex court's powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to be granted to the high courts. Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass 'any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it' within the country. ALSO READ | 'We are alleged to be encroaching upon parliamentary, executive functions': Supreme Court A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan wondered how the court could allow such a petition. 'How can we grant such prayer? It requires an amendment to the Constitution. You go to Parliament. Prayer made in this petition is completely misconceived. Power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution is only on this court and not the high courts. Therefore, we cannot allow high court to exercise power of this court under Article 142,' the bench said. The top court last exercised its power under Article 142 in the case brought by the Tamil Nadu government against state governor RN Ravi for his inordinate delay in granting assent to 10 bills passed by the state legislative assembly. In its judgement, the apex court came down heavily on the governor for his 'unconstitutional' actions and held that all state bills were deemed to have granted assent. All 10 bills were notified by the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu as laws under the government gazette. The case marked an historic development in India's federal history where state bills became laws without the governor's assent. ALSO READ | Timelines set on bills extend to President's Office: Supreme Court in TN govt vs Governor case The judgment by a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan also set clear timelines for the governor to decide on granting or withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislative assembly or referring them to the president. The specific timelines apply not just to governors but also to the President to act on state legislation - a first in India's constitutional history. The development seemed to have set off a face-off between the top court and the executive, with Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar slamming the use of Article 142 as a 'nuclear missile'. The Rajya Sabha chairman also criticised the court for acting as a 'super parliament.' Opposition leaders launched sharp criticism in response to Dhankhar. Several parties, including the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), the DMK, and prominent legal voices, accused the Vice President of undermining the judiciary and 'bordering on contempt.'
