During the hearing of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought forth by Tushar Gandhi in the Supreme Court in relation to the incident in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, where a teacher reportedly encouraged students to harm a Muslim student, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj who appeared for the State raised concerns about the Petitioner misusing Mahatma Gandhi's name in the PIL.

ASG Natraj stated, "One thing I want to point out in this matter. Anybody can come before this Hon'ble Court for any cause, he should not come with a particular placard that he is the grandson of Mahatma and all. It's not a right. If he is Mahatma's grandson... the petitioner should not come in this way at all. It’s a very unfortunate situation"

The Bench responded by saying, "We can always treat this as a suo motu petition," to which ASG stated, "Absolutely, anyone can come here, even a common man can approach this court." Meanwhile, Advocate-on-Record Shadan Farasat, representing the Petitioner, objected by stating that Tushar Gandhi had approached the Court as a social worker.

Natraj further emphasized that regardless of the merits of the case, his primary concern pertained to the use of Mahatma Gandhi's name. "The concern is, by coming with a placard of Mahatama.. that is not at all called for. He should not use it. We have the highest respect for Mahatma."

Farasat responded by saying that Tushar Gandhi has approached the Court in his capacity as a social worker and that it is highly unfair to criticize the petitioner in such a manner.

The Court, while dictating the order stated, "Learned ASG raises an objection to the locus of the Petitioner". The ASG then clarified that he was not raising objection on the locus and that he was only against the misuse of the name of Mahatma Gandhi.

"My concern was only about his holding this identity card and coming to the Court. In every matter he should not do it", stated the ASG.

The Bench then noted in its order, "The ASG states that the petitioner cannot make capital of the fact that he is the great-grandson of Mahatma. In fact, in a case like this, the state should not be really concerned with the locus of the petitioner, in as much as this is not only a case of failure to set the criminal law in motion but a case where there is violation of the fundamental right of the victim under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, as well as a violation of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act." The Court also observed in its order that the court can always treat the petition as suo motu proceedings.

The Supreme Court also expressed serious reservations about the handling of the case, particularly with regard to the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) and the quality of education in the State.

In the PIL filed by Tushar Gandhi, a social activist and the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, it was submitted to the Court that on August 24, 2023, a distressing video surfaced showing a 7-year-old boy being slapped by fellow students at Neha Public School in Muzaffarnagar village, Uttar Pradesh.

The PIL stated that this incident occurred under the instruction of their teacher/principal, Ms Tripti Tyagi because the boy made errors in his multiplication tables. "The teacher was seen on video telling the children to hit their classmate “hard” and saying at one point: “Maine toh declare kar diya, jitne bhi Mohammedan bachche hain, inke wahan chale jao (I have declared – all these Muslim children, go to anyone’s area)…” Then, as one child sits down after hitting the boy, the teacher tells him: “Kya tum maar rahe ho? Zor se maaro na (Why are you hitting him so lightly? Hit him hard)", stated the PIL.

Cause Title: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 406/2023]

Tushar GandhiAdditional Solicitor General K.M. NatrajMahatma Gandhi

Ramey Krishan Rana