UNION OF INDIAversusBIJAN GHOSH AND ORS.

                          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 infact 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.
                                                                           G
      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.                             H
                                   227
    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 Ratna on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It is contended that an
award or a title has its own limitations. When a personality is higher and
greater than any award or title, conferring of such honour on that person       B
becomes ridiculous and it becomes an act of "carelessness" to classify such
a person as an equal of others who have already been awarded such title
or who may be awarded such a title in future.

     It seems that the family members of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose            C
also conveyed to the Government of India their unhappiness at the
announcement and expressed their unwillingness to accept such an award.

      In view of the sentiments expressed by the members of. public and
the family members of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in connection with
the press communication, the Government of India did not proceed further D
in the matter. In their affidavit which is filed in these proceedings, they
have stated that the matter was treated as closed. The original petitioners
have expressed their anguish at this statement made on affidavit by the
Government of India and have submitted that the award/press
communication should be withdrawn.                                          E
      We have heard the original petitioners and the learned advocates
appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners. In order to clarify the
position, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General has drawn
our attention to notification dated 8th of January, 1955 issued by the office   F
of the Secretary to the President bearing No. l-pres./55 setting out the
Statutes and Rules relating to the awards of Bharat Ratna, Padma
Vibhushan. Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri. It sets out, i11ter alia, as
follows : -

        "l. The decoration shall be conferred by the President of India by G
        a sanad under his hand and seal.



        8. The names of the persons, upon whom the decoration is con-
        ferred, shall be published in the Ga±ette of India and a register of H
    230                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. ·

A           all such recipients shall be maintained under the direction of the
            President.




               10. The President may cancel and annul the award of the .
B           decoration to any person and thereupon his name shall be erased
            from the Register and he shall be required to surrender the
            decoration and the Sanad. But ii shall be competent for the
            President to restore the decoration and Sa.nad and to withdraw the
            orders of cancellation and annulment. The notice of cancellation
c           or restoration in every case shall be published in the Gazette of
            India."

  In order to confer the award of Bhar"at Ratna, it is necessary that the name .
  of that person should be published in the Gazette of India. It is also
D necessary that the name of such a person should be entered in the register
  of such recipients maintained under the direction of the President. Clause
  10 which deals with cancellation or annulment of the award requires the
  erasure of the name of such a person from the register. The notice of
  cancellation in every case is also required to be published in the Gazette
  of India. It is pointed out by the Additional Solicitor General that the
E award has to be conferred by first publishing the name of the recipient in
  the. Gazette of India and entering it in the register of recipients In the .
  present case, only an announcement was made by the press communication
  which was issued. In deference to the sentiments expressed by the public
  and by the members of the family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, the
F Government of India did not proceed further to confer the award and
  hence the name was not published in the Gazette of India, nor was it
  entered in .the register of recipients, nor was any decoration conferred by
  the President by a Sanad under his hand and seal. That is why the affidavit
  filed on behalf of the Union of India states that the matter was closed in
  the sense that no further steps were taken for conferment of Bharat Ratna
G on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Since the award has not in fact been
   conferred, the question of cancellation or annulment of the award under
   Clause 10 does not arise. Looking to the statutes and Rules relating to the
   award, int!!r alia, of Bharat Ratna, the position as explained by the Union
   of India appears to be correct. In deference to the feelings so eloquently .
H expressed in these proceedings and which were no doubt, conveyed to the
                          U.0.1. v. B. GHOSH                          231
Union of India, the award was, in fact, not conferred and the proposal was A
dropped. We need not, therefore, go into the question whether the word
'posthumously' has been justifiably used in the press communique or the
wider question whether there is enough material available for r~aching the
conclusion that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose died either in the air-crash. of
18th of August, 1945 or at any time thereafter. This is a wider issue on B
which undoubtedly in future as in the past, there will be divergent views.
The real controversy in these proceedings relates to the press communique.
Since no further steps have been taken pursuant to the press communique
and the matter is treated as closed, we declare that the press communique
should be treated as cancelled. With this .declaration nothing further
survives and the various petitions either transferred from the Calcutta High C
Court or filed in this Court stand disposed of.

R.P.                                        Petition andT.C. disposed of.