Senior counsel A M Singhvi submitted before the Supreme Court that Anita Bose Pfaff was Subhas Chandra Bose's sole heir and supported the petition.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a plea filed by a relative of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose seeking its intervention to bring his mortal remains, said to be preserved in Japan, to India.
With a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, not keen to entertain it, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner Ashish Ray, withdrew it.
Singhvi informed the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, that Ray is Netaji’s grand-nephew and that his petition has the support of the freedom fighter’s only daughter, Anita Bose Pfaff.
The CJI pointed out that petitions regarding Netaji had come to the apex court even before. “How many times this issue will come to Supreme Court?” he asked.
Singhvi said the issue raised in the current petition was different and that it was not to make any declaration on Netaji’s death.
However, the CJI said the question of Bose’s death could arise directly or indirectly. “Indirectly or directly. We also understand why this petition is coming up again after it was dismissed last year,” he said.
Justice Bagchi too said the question of ashes cannot arise unless the issue of death is discussed.
The CJI asked, “First of all, where are the ashes? What is the proof?”
Singhvi said, “The fact that every head of state from India, prime ministers, have paid obeisance to the Renkoji temple is recorded.”
The senior counsel said that Pfaff, who lives in Austria, was the sole heir and supported the petition.
Justice Bagchi said, “Let the heir come before us. It cannot be a fight behind the clouds. If the heir wants the ashes…to be brought back to the country, the heir must come before us.”
Stating that Pfaff was appearing online, Singhvi urged the court to hear her, but the bench was not inclined.
Justice Bagchi added, “We make it very clear, we respect their sentiments, and we would ensure her sentiments are translated into legal action. But she must step forward…There are differences, to our knowledge, in the family itself with regard to the incidents which occurred…”