Supreme Court rejects PIL against political parties using national tricolour in their flags
"Since when are they (Political parties) doing it? Some parties are doing it before Independence, dismissed," said the top court's three-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria.
The apex court passed the order, after hearing a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) filed by a petitioner-in-person, Sanjay Bhimashankar Thobde, against using the tricolour of the National Flag as part of their political campaign, replacing the Ashoka Chakra with their symbols.
The petitioner, Thobde, who appeared in person, to argue his case submitted before the apex court that certain political parties have been using flag designs closely resembling the national tricolour in their political campaigns, often replacing the Ashoka Chakra with party symbols.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
9 minutes ago
- Hans India
Oppn MPs protest against Bihar SIR, vow to press for PM's presence in House
New Delhi: Opposition MPs, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, on Tuesday held a protest in the Parliament House complex against the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. The Opposition MPs gathered on the steps of Makar Dwar of Parliament and raised slogans against SIR exercise, alleging it amounts to stealing elections. They also held placards like 'SIR: Stealing Indian Rights' and 'SIR: Subverting Indian Republic'. MPs of several parties, including Congress, SP, RJD, TMC, DMK and JMM, participated in the protest. Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who also took part in the protest, slammed SIR as "vote bandi" and alleged that it was a conspiracy to snatch the right to vote. In a post in Hindi on X, she said, "First, in Maharashtra, elections were rigged by inflating voter lists. Now, in Bihar, attempts are being made to do the same by removing voters' names. "The 'vote bandi' being imposed under the guise of Special Intensive Revision is a conspiracy to snatch the right to vote granted by the Constitution. We stand firmly against every attempt to trample upon the Constitution." "Participated in a protest in the Parliament premises against the 'vote bandi' ongoing in Bihar, alongside Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and leaders of the INDIA bloc, she said. Earlier, a meeting of INDIA bloc leaders was held in the presence of Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. During the meeting, the opposition decided to press for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's presence in the House to answer questions on key issues, Congress general secretary organisation K C Venugopal said. The issues flagged were the Pahalgam terror attack, Operation Sindoor, US President Donald Trump's statements on India-Pakistan "ceasefire", Bihar's SIR process, delimitation, "growing atrocities" against Dalits, Adivasis, Backward classes and women, AI 171 plane crash and Manipur "civil war", according to Venugopal. These are people's issues and must be given utmost priority, he said. Sources said the Opposition leaders also resolved to raise the issue that Gandhi be allowed to speak inside the House. It was also decided that the opposition would raise the issue of SIR in both Houses of Parliament.
Hans India
9 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC seeks Centre's response on timeline for Prez assent to Bills
New Delhi: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses of the Centre and all states on the Presidential reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with Bills passed by the Assembly. Observing that the issues raised in the Presidential reference will affect 'the entire country', a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai sought the replies in a week and fixed the reference for fixing timelines and other procedural details on July 29. "There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the Attorney General to assist us. Issue notice to the Union and all state governments. The Solicitor General will appear for the Union. All state governments be served through emails. List it on next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsel," ordered the bench which also comprised justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar. During a brief hearing, senior advocates KK Venugopal and P Wilson, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, opposed the reference and questioned its maintainability. These objections can be raised later, the CJI said, adding the matter will be taken up in mid-August. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the Bills passed by the state Assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The President's decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of Governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor, President under Article 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to passage of Bills by the state Assembly and subsequent options available to the Governor on grant of assent, or withholding of assent or sending the Bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the Bills reserved for the President's consideration by the Governor. The rules prescribe for the review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of Governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon Governor for the exercise of constitutional options. The President said similarly Article 201, which prescribes the powers of President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent, therefrom does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court. The verdict has set a timeline for all Governors to act on the Bills passed by the state Assemblies and ruled that Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any Bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration.
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
C Raja Mohan writes: PM Modi in the UK: Let go of the bilateral baggage
The formal signing of the India-UK Free Trade Agreement during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to London this week marks a long-awaited turning point in bilateral relations. The early 1990s opened a new opportunity for Delhi and London to move beyond the bitter legacies of Partition and the Cold War and build on the fresh possibilities offered by India's economic liberalisation. Only after multiple twists and turns has the wide gap between promise and performance in the relationship begun to close. If Queen Elizabeth II's 1997 visit to India — meant to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Independence — turned into a political fiasco, Modi's meeting this week with King Charles III could mark the beginning of a new and more productive phase. And it comes at a particularly opportune moment. The trade pact, along with expanding cooperation in technology, defence, and education, will help both countries navigate the turbulent effects of US President Donald Trump's political upheaval — whether one sees it as a revolution or a counterrevolution — on American global engagement and the international order. London, the US's closest and most enduring ally, and Delhi, which has built a new foundation for strategic cooperation with Washington, have both been significantly impacted by Trump's policies. Efforts to reboot India-UK ties began promisingly in the 1990s, when Conservative Prime Minister John Major strongly supported India's economic reforms. But the momentum faltered in the early years of the Labour governments (1997-2010), which continued to view India through an outdated colonial lens. What should have been a celebratory and reflective moment during the Queen's 1997 visit was marred by then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's gratuitous meddling in the Kashmir issue and Indo-Pakistani relations. The resulting outrage was memorably captured by Indian Prime Minister I K Gujral, who called Britain a 'third-rate power'. Gujral was right to object to British overreach, but his characterisation of Britain was far off the mark. In the mid-1990s, the UK ranked among the world's top five economies, with a GDP exceeding the combined economic output of China, India, and Russia at the time. Britain had lost its empire but has remained a power of considerable global influence. Three decades later, it is still the world's sixth-largest economy. Its per capita income — around $55,000—compares starkly with India's $3,000, China's $14,000, and Russia's $15,000. The perception in Delhi of Britain as a 'diminished power' stands in sharp contrast to India's enduring view of Russia as a 'superpower'. This disconnect reflects a lingering anti-colonial mindset and a romanticised view of Russia in Delhi but has little grounding in present-day realities. It ignores the large interface between Indian and British societies that stands in contrast to a narrow government-to-government relationship with Moscow. One of the key drivers of the evolving India-UK relationship has been the effort to shed the lingering colonial condescension in London and entrenched anti-imperial resentment in Delhi. The focus has now shifted to building a pragmatic, forward-looking partnership based on shared interests. It has also meant confronting Delhi's own double standards. While the Indian elite never misses an opportunity to denounce British colonialism, it continues to seek validation from Britain and its institutions. Across the political spectrum, leaders denounce the English language but educate their children in English-medium schools, aspire for admissions to Oxbridge and the Ivy League, and dream of emigration to the Anglosphere. This is not even to mention the popular fascination with Britain in states like Bengal, Gujarat, and Punjab. Overcoming this love-hate relationship was not easy. But the return of the Conservatives to power in 2010 saw an effort to transcend the old entanglements of Kashmir and Pakistan. Prime Minister David Cameron's 2010 visit aimed to reboot bilateral ties. However, the British establishment was not fully prepared for a shift, and the UPA government in Delhi failed to seize the moment. The arrival of the Modi government in 2014 brought a new readiness to reassess Britain. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers — especially Boris Johnson — actively worked with India to imagine a shared future, outlined in the '2030 Roadmap for India-UK Relations'. The free trade agreement being signed this week, the 2024 technology security initiative, and the joint defence industrial roadmap announced this year are all fruits of that vision. Implementing the 2030 roadmap would not have been possible without greater responsiveness from the British establishment. Particularly significant in addressing Delhi's concerns about anti-India extremism is Prime Minister Keir Starmer's reining in the extremist factions within the Labour Party that had taken a hostile stance on India carrying forward the 2030 Roadmap initiated by the Tories. Modi's visit is also an opportunity to reflect on the deep economic and political turbulence within Britain. The Starmer government is struggling to revive a stagnating economy. It has abandoned the strategy of total reliance on services and launched an industrial policy aimed at innovation-led growth in eight key sectors, including advanced manufacturing, defence, clean energy, life sciences, and creative industries. This opens new possibilities for India-UK collaboration. Britain remains a global leader in higher education, scientific research, and technology — and Modi's visit could help identify fresh avenues for partnership in these domains. It is also set to play a critical role in European security amid American retrenchment under Trump. India should recognise the internal political fragmentation in Britain amid mounting pressures on the two-party system. Delhi should also be aware of the rising anti-immigration sentiment in a rapidly changing Britain. It should focus less on sending more students and workers to Britain. Instead, Delhi should be drawing British universities into India and building collaboration with British capital to expand opportunities at home. For too long, Delhi and London have underestimated what they could do for each other. Briefly before Independence, some in both capitals imagined that a partnership between a free India and a post-imperial Britain could preserve London's global stature, amid the rise of America and Soviet Russia, and facilitate India's emergence as a dominant power in the Indian Ocean and beyond. That bold vision was derailed by the trauma of Partition, the chaos of decolonisation, and the polarising currents of the Cold War. But eight decades later, India and Britain stand once again at an inflexion point. As middle powers, they are now better positioned to pursue a more modest, pragmatic goal: To act as force multipliers for each other in a world increasingly shaped by an assertive China and an unpredictable America. The writer is contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express and distinguished fellow at the Council on Strategic and Defence Research
