SC Refuses to Entertain Plea to Bring Back Netaji Bose's Ashes
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for petitioner Ashis Ray, sought permission to withdraw it
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a plea filed by the grand nephew of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, seeking directions to bring back to India the ashes believed to be those of Bose from Tokyo's Renkoji temple. After a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi showed its disinclination to entertain the plea, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for petitioner Ashis Ray, sought permission to withdraw it.
The bench permitted him to withdraw the petition.
"I am appearing for the family members who want to give a decent quietus to the ashes," Singhvi told the bench at the outset.
The CJI asked how many times this issue would come up before the apex court.
The bench said last year itself, the top court had dismissed one petition.
Singhvi said this was not the issue that had come up before the court earlier.
"First of all, where are the ashes? What is that proof?" the CJI said, adding that Bose was one of the greatest leaders of our nation, and we all bow down to his sacrifice.
Singhvi said it is recorded that every head of state from India has paid obeisance at the Renkoji temple in Japan.
He said the matter which the apex court had dealt with earlier was concerning declaring whether Bose had died or not.
"That is inference. Until and unless he dies, there can't be ashes," the bench observed.
"First, we would like to know how many family members are supporting this," the bench asked.
Singhvi said Bose has only one heir, who is his 84-year-old daughter, and the petitioner is his grand nephew.
"She (daughter) is not before us," the bench said, adding that if the heir wanted the ashes to be brought to the country, she must come before it.
Singhvi said the daughter was appearing virtually in the court.
"We respect her sentiments, and we would ensure that her sentiments are translated into legal action. But she must step forward," the bench said.
It said, "There are differences, to our knowledge, within the family itself with regard to the incident which occurred".
