UNION OF INDIA versus BIJAN GHOSH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 04-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
BUAN GHOSH AND ORS. 
AUGUST 4, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Decoration: 
Decoration with Bharat Ratna-Notification No. l-Pres./55 issued by 
Officer of Secretary to the President of India-Press communique issued from C 
Rashtrapati Bhawan and published on 23.1.1992-To confer the award of 
Bharat Ratna posthumously on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose-Writ petition 
filed in High Cowt praying to recall, rescind, cancel and revoke the Bharat 
Ratna purported to be confe"ed on NetajHn view of sentiments expressed 
by public and family members of Netaji, Government did not proceed further D 
in the matter-Held, in order to confer the award of Bharat Ratna it is 
necessary th?it the name of the person should be pi;blished in the Gazette of 
India and should· also be entered in the register maintained for the pur-
pose-Since the award has inf act not been confe"ed, question of cancellation 
or annulment of the award does not arise-Since no further steps have been 
taken pursuant to the press communique and the matter is treated as closed, E 
the press communique should be treated as cancelled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 628 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.93 of the Calcutta High F 
Court in C.O. No. 6720 of 1993. 
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, B. Parthasarathi, 
Hemani Sharma and P. Parmeswaran for the Petitioner. 
In-person for the Respondent. 
F.S. Nariman, M.N. Krishnamani, Rudra Bhattacharjee, Subhash 
Sharma for Ms. Sada Chandra, for the Respondent. 
V.P. Saini-In-Person for the Respondent. 
227 
G 
H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The proceedings which are before us have arisen out of a press 
communique which was issued from the Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi 
and was published on 23rd of January, 1992. It is to the following effect : 
B 
"The President is pleased to confer the award of Bharat Ratna 
Posthumously on Shri Subhash Chandra Bose." 
On reading this press communique the sentiments of many people were 
hurt. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court 
C praying, Inter Alia, to recall, rescind, cancel and revoke the 'Bharat Ratna' . 
purported to be conferred on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose posthumously 
by the press communique dated 22nd January, 1992 and forbear from 
handing over to any person or persons, institution or institutions any 
document or insignia or symbol containing the impugned 'Bharat Ratna' 
or any communication bearing reference thereto for acceptance or preser-
D vation or display or for any other purpose. The petitioner also prayed for 
a direction that respondents 1 . and 2 declare full particulars of the 
whereabouts of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose from 18th of August, 1945 
till date on the basis of records and information at their disposal dehors 
the reports and findings of the Netaji Inquiry Committee 1956 and the 
E Netaji Inquiry Commission 1970, and to institute a proper Investigation into 
such whereabouts with a view to locating him, if alive, and bringing him to 
India with due honour and dignity and if he is found to have died, to furnish 
full particulars of his stay from 18th August, 1945 onwards and his sub-
sequent death and the place and manner of disposal of his mortal remains .. 
There are various reliefs prayed for which are connected with these reliefs. 
F 
The petitioner has taken strong exception to the use of the word 
'posthumously' in the press communique and has submitted that the 
Government of India has not officially accepted the alleged report of the 
death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in an air-crash in Taiwan on 18th of 
August, 1945. Without any specific report of the death of Netaji Subhas 
G Chandra Bose being accepted by the Government of India, it cannot and 
should not confer on him any title with the description 'posthumously'. In 
this connection elaborate averments have been made about the Netaji 
Inquiry Cort'lmittee 1956 which was then constituted and the report of this 
Committee as also the Netaji Inquiry Commission 1970 constituted under 
H the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. It is contended that a further inquiry 
U.O.I. V; B..GHOSH 
229 
should be held in this connection and in the absence of such an inquiry the A 
award should not be conferred posthumously. 
The petitioner has also raised another objection to the conferment 
of Bharat Rat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.