Decisions regarding the installation or removal of portraits of historical figures in legislative premises raise questions of executive discretion, legislative autonomy, and judicial restraint. Discuss.

Q. Decisions regarding the installation or removal of portraits of historical figures in legislative premises raise questions of executive discretion, legislative autonomy, and judicial restraint. Discuss. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Supreme Court's refusal in January 2026 to entertain a PIL seeking removal of V.D. Savarkar's portraits from Parliament (Balasundaram Balamurugan v. Union of India) underlines that commemorative symbols in legislatures are settled by institutional discretion and political consensus, not by judicial command.

Executive discretion: commemoration as political choice - Installation is essentially a discretionary honour, routed through parliamentary committees and unveiled at the highest level — Savarkar's Central Hall portrait was unveiled on 26 February 2003 by President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam [1]. - The ruling dispensation signals its ideological worldview through such honours, as in the Lok Sabha Speaker's official floral tribute to Savarkar in the Central Hall of Samvidhan Sadan [2]. - Risk: contested figures may convert a shared national memory into a partisan assertion, especially where no transparent, published criteria for selection exist.

Legislative autonomy: the House is master of its own premises - The portraits and statues of the Parliament House Complex are curated and maintained under the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Speaker's authority [3]. - Articles 105 and 194 protect the privileges of legislatures, while Articles 122 and 212 bar courts from inquiring into proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularity [4] — reinforcing each House's control over its internal space. - State Assemblies have accordingly left such demands to the presiding officer's ruling, keeping the dispute political rather than justiciable.

Judicial restraint: the limits of the writ - No petitioner holds an enforceable legal right to a particular portrait; adjudicating contested historiography would draw courts into political thickets. - The Court has repeatedly cautioned against misuse of PIL, directing judges to verify a petitioner's credentials and discourage petitions driven by extraneous motives (State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010) [5]; costs serve as deterrence under its inherent jurisdiction and Article 142 [4].

Portrait disputes are thus best resolved within representative institutions, with courts intervening only where a constitutional right is breached. A transparent, committee-driven and consultative protocol for commemorating national figures — with reasons recorded by the presiding officer — would respect legislative autonomy, reduce frivolous litigation, and keep public memory aligned with the fraternity and dignity promised by the Preamble.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Content Details of Portraits and Statues of National Leaders/Parliamentarians, Lok Sabha Secretariat — Savarkar's Central Hall portrait unveiled on 26.02.2003 by President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam; installation process 2. Lok Sabha Speaker Pays Floral Tributes to Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, PIB — official commemoration of Savarkar in Central Hall, Samvidhan Sadan 3. Portraits Installed in Central Hall, Parliament House — Lok Sabha — custody and curation of portraits by the Lok Sabha Secretariat 4. The Constitution of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 105/194 (privileges), 122/212 (courts not to inquire into proceedings), 142 (complete justice) 5. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010), Supreme Court of India — guidelines to curb misuse of PIL and verify petitioners' credentials