Odisha HC to hear PIL on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on February 12

CUTTACK: The Odisha High Court on Wednesday adjourned to February 12 hearing on a PIL seeking certain directions regarding Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, while permitting the Central and State governments counsels time till then to file reply affidavits.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M S Sahoo was hearing a PIL filed by Pinakpani Mohanty, a resident of Cuttack seeking the Court’s direction to the Central government “to declare Netaji as a national son and observe his birthday as national day.”
The petition also sought direction “to declare the birthplace of Netaji as a national museum.” Janaki Nath Bhawan at Oriya Bazar in Cuttack, the ancestral home of Netaji and his birthplace was declared a protected monument by the Odisha State Archaeology in 1991. The building with 23 rooms was subsequently restored to its original look and has been the Netaji Birth Place Museum since 2004, a major landmark for Cuttack city attracting tourists both from within the country and other countries as well.
Mohanty further sought direction “for declassification of transfer to power agreement of 1947 including of intelligence bureau secret files regarding Netaji” and “for acceptance of the Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry report.”
The Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry (JMCI), instituted by the NDA Government in 1999 concluded that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose did not die in any plane crash on August 18, 1945. The Mukherjee Commission also commented that the ashes kept in the Renkoji temple in Japan was not of the late Netaji but was one of the late Okahara Ichiro.
The Bench said Deputy Solicitor General Prasanna Kumar Parhi representing the Union of India and State Counsel S B Panda “will be heard on the adjourned date.”
“They have permission to file an affidavit, if they will, to be accepted on adjourned date upon advance copy served,” the Bench specified.
It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his representation to the Prime Minister was referred to the home ministry. The petitioner counsel wanted to file a memo disclosing documents to show that the home ministry did not act to address grievances in the representation.
However, the Bench did not take the memo on record saying, “action/inaction of the home ministry may be separate cause of action for petitioner.”