The Delhi High Court recently questioned the controversy surrounding the term “Viksit Bharat” (developed India) in the government scheme, Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra, suggesting that such slogans are commonly used by political parties. The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, noted that the term simply denotes a developed India.
During the hearing of a plea alleging the misuse of government resources for promoting the yatra, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, representing the petitioner, argued that “Viksit Bharat” is also the slogan of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), indicating partisan promotion. However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Central government, countered this by emphasizing that the scheme is apolitical, devoid of any party insignia or reference.
Sharma supported his argument with data, highlighting the extensive reach of the yatra, which has reached thousands of villages and benefited millions of people. He explained that the yatra serves as a means to gather feedback and disseminate information about government schemes.
The Court adjourned the case to May 21 after hearing both sides’ arguments. The PIL, filed by former IAS officer EAS Sarma and former IIM Ahmedabad Dean Jagdeep S Chhokar, alleges the misuse of public resources for the Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra.
The petitioners also challenged a Ministry of Defence (MoD) order directing the armed forces to set up selfie points featuring images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to showcase ministry achievements. The Central government contends that such yantras provide essential outreach to individuals in remote areas who may not be aware of government initiatives.
In an earlier hearing on January 5, 2024, the High Court had expressed that promoting government schemes, devoid of political insignia or party promotion, is not objectionable. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan remarked that the Prime Minister, as an elected official, holds a constitutional post. Thus, using public funds to raise awareness about government initiatives does not warrant grievance, the Court concluded.
