Delhi High Court Declines INA Memorial PIL on Fundamental Rights

• The Delhi High Court refused to order the establishment of an INA memorial at Red Fort in response to a PIL.
• The court ruled that government press releases do not create enforceable fundamental rights.
• The decision to erect a memorial is considered a discretionary power of the government, beyond judicial interference.
• The Mahan Swantantrata Senani Lalti Ram Trust had argued that the lack of a memorial violated fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 14.
• Petitioners were granted liberty to file a representation with the government for consideration.

Erection or no erection of a memorial is the discretion of the government. Courts can’t interfere.

The Delhi High Court recently declined to issue directives for the establishment of a memorial dedicated to Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army (INA) within the historic Red Fort. This decision came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, who was then the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and Justice Tejas Karia, who firmly stated that such an order could not be passed in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition. The court's ruling underscores a significant boundary regarding judicial intervention in governmental policy decisions.

The PIL was brought forward by the Mahan Swantantrata Senani Lalti Ram Trust, which contended that the government's failure to construct the memorial constituted a violation of fundamental rights. Specifically, the Trust invoked Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, asserting that the right to life and personal liberty, and the right to equality, were infringed by the lack of a dedicated INA memorial. However, the High Court found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing that the judiciary's role does not extend to mandating the erection of such structures.

A central point of contention in the PIL was the petitioner's reliance on a 2021 press release from the Central government. This release had indicated an intention to establish a memorial at Red Fort to honor martyred INA soldiers. The Mahan Swantantrata Senani Lalti Ram Trust argued that this official announcement created an expectation and, by extension, an enforceable right to the memorial's construction.

However, the Delhi High Court explicitly rejected this premise. The Bench clarified that "announcements made through PIB press releases, in our opinion, do not, in itself, can form the basis of seeking any right." The court further elaborated that the decision to erect a memorial falls squarely within the government's discretionary powers. It stressed that courts are not positioned to interfere with such policy choices, stating unequivocally that "Erection or no erection of a memorial is the discretion of the government. Courts can’t interfere." The judiciary's role is not to debate whether or not a memorial should be created.

This ruling carries important implications for the scope and limitations of public interest litigation, particularly concerning government commitments and fundamental rights. The Delhi High Court's stance highlights that not every governmental announcement, even if made through official channels like a press release, automatically translates into a legally enforceable right that can be pursued through a PIL. The court's observation that "Whatever makes you feel good does not become subject matter of PIL" serves as a pointed reminder of the strict criteria for judicial intervention.

The decision reinforces the principle that courts generally refrain from dictating discretionary policy matters to the executive branch. While the petitioner was granted the liberty to submit a formal representation to the government, with an expectation that it would be considered, the High Court made it clear that the ultimate decision regarding the INA memorial at Red Fort remains firmly within the government's purview. This case provides a clear precedent regarding the boundaries of judicial review when it comes to government discretion and the interpretation of fundamental rights in the context of public interest litigation.

Lawyers advising on public interest litigation or government commitments should note that mere government press releases do not automatically create enforceable fundamental rights, and courts will generally not intervene in discretionary government decisions like memorial construction, thereby limiting the scope of judicial review in such matters.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source