The Supreme Court on Friday refused to direct the removal of Union minister V.K. Singh or green-light a sedition case against him over his purported claim on Indian incursions into China, pointing out that such action was the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

A social activist had moved the apex court asking for a sedition case to be filed against junior road transport and highways minister Singh, or his sacking, for suggesting that India had crossed the Line of Actual Control more often than China.

“Let me assure you, if China has transgressed 10 times, we must have done it at least 50 times,” Singh, a former army chief, has been quoted as saying. China had termed the statement “an unwitting confession” by India, appearing to weaken New Delhi’s position amid Chinese incursions and the Galwan Valley clash that killed 20 Indian soldiers.

On Friday, hearing the petition by social activist Chandrasekaran Ramasamy, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana told petitioner’s counsel C.R. Jayasukin: “If he (Singh) has done something, it is for the Prime Minister to act if it is inappropriate. This court can’t pass any order.”

The counsel persisted with the argument for action against Singh, saying the minister had made statements against the army.

Justice Ramana replied that if the minister had done anything inappropriate, the solution did not lie in approaching the apex court through a public interest litigation.

The CJI, who headed a bench that also had Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, passed the following order: “…Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32

of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

Article 32 deals with the right to move the Supreme Court through appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Ramasamy, a Tamil Nadu-based activist, had moved the petition in February.

The petition had stated: “…Unfortunately, if either the voluntary resigning or removal of the government minister does not happen, it is begged before the honourable Supreme Court of India to initiate suitable action against him as per the anti-national law and set a standard to people in higher positions what and how to speak and give statements carefully and correctly.”

It had pleaded that Section 124A of the IPC, which deals with sedition, be invoked against Singh.

Section 124A states: “Whoever, words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”