The Delhi High Court on Tuesday gave a final opportunity to the Centre and several opposition parties to respond to a petition against the acronym INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance).


A bench of acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora said that the replies must be filed within one week.


A public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court has alleged that by using the 'INDIA' acronym, the opposition alliance is taking an “undue advantage in the name of our country”.


A number of  political parties including Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, Aam Aadmi Party, Janata Dal (United), Rashtriya Janata Dal, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar), Shiv Sena (UBT), Samajwadi Party, were made party to the PIL for forming an alliance under the name of 'INDIA' acronym.


A person named Girish Bharadwaj moved the PIL in Delhi High Court and sought an early hearing of the matter on the grounds that the petition was pending since August 2023. He further conteded that the pleadings are yet to be completed and the election schedule has already been announced by the Election Commission.


Advocate Vaibhav Singh appearing for Bharadwaj, told the high court that eight opportunities have already been given to Centre and the opposition parties but they have not yet filed their replies. Only the Election Commission Of India (ECI) has filed its reply so far.


Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi appearing for the INDIA alliance, told the high court that there are preliminary objections against the PIL and the apex court has already dealt with the issue.


The high court refused to prepone the date of hearing of the PIL, but said an attempt must be made to dispose of the petition on April 10.


In 2023, the Supreme Court had called a similar petition that claimed that use of such a name goes against morality, said that the top court is not going to determine morality in politics.


“It is sad that people waste time on this,” the now retired Justice Kaul remarked. The PIL was termed as a "punlicity stunt" by the apex court.