SC slams petition against Dehradun war memorial, imposes Rs 1 lakh fine

The Supreme Court in strongly worded remarks expressed its displeasure over a plea opposing the construction of a war memorial in Dehradun and asked the petitioner to have “at least some respect” to for those who sacrificed their lives for the nation.

The apex court on Thursday ( March 12) also refused to entertain the plea challenging a January order of the Uttarakhand High Court and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner while issuing a show cause notice to him.

‘At least have some respect’

"You have problem with construction of a war memorial?" a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi asked the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Also Read: SC refuses plea to bring back Netaji’s 'ashes'; asks why daughter is not the petitioner

"For those who have sacrificed their lives for the nation, at least have some respect," the CJI said. The bench stated that the petition should have been dismissed by the high court with exemplary costs.

"We will issue show cause notice to him (petitioner). Let him come and explain and we will hold an inquiry as to on whose instance he is filing this petition," the CJI said.

SC calls petition ‘mischievously designed’

The counsel appearing for the petitioner claimed that even the war memorial was not being properly constructed there.

"These are all mischievously designed writ petitions," the bench observed, while asking the counsel how much cost should be imposed on the petitioner.

Also Read: Harish Rana case: What did the SC actually decide and why it took so long?

The bench said it would dismiss the petition with a cost of Rs 1 lakh.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the bench allowed.

What the petitioner claimed in HC

Before the high court, the petitioner had claimed that the state government was constructing a war memorial in Dehradun without ascertaining the true nature of the land.

Also Read: SC allows passive euthanasia for 32-year-old man in coma for over 12 years

The counsel appearing for the state had referred to a joint survey report and told the high court that a joint survey was done by the revenue as well as forest authorities.

The state said that in the joint inspection report, it was mentioned that the land in question was not part of forest land.

It also said the report mentioned that forest authorities do not have any objection to the allotment of land for the construction of the war memorial.

HC earlier dismissed the plea

The state's counsel told the high court that construction of the war memorial began in 2021 and was almost complete.

"Since forest authorities have inspected land and certified that it is not part of forest land, therefore, ground taken by petitioner for challenging construction of war memorial is legally unsustainable," the high court said while dismissing the plea.

(With agency inputs)