Honouring Bharat Mata Is An Expression Of Love And Pride: Madras High Court Asks State To Return Bharatha Matha Statue Taken From BJP Office

Though the authorities claimed to have removed the statue to maintain peace and harmony in the society, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that no person in their right mind would contend that the expression of one's patriotism would imperil the interest of the State or any community.

“No person in his right senses could seriously contend that expressing one's patriotism and love for one's country would imperil the interests of the State or the community. Indeed, the position is precisely the converse as the Constitution itself enjoins the citizen to promote such values in terms of the Fundamental Duties under Article 51-A,” the court remarked.

The court went on to add that the installation of the statue on a private property was deeply personal and symbolised the individual's reverence for the motherland. The court remarked that honouring Bharatha Matha by erecting a statue was an expression of love and pride and served as a reminder of the values and sacrifices associated with one's heritage. The court said that the statute was like a personal shrine that embodied hope, unity and respect for the land and invited ideals of freedom, resilience and cultural identity that Bharatha Matha represents.

“The installation of a statue of Bharatha Matha on private property is a deeply personal and symbolic act that reflects an individual's reverence for their motherland. Unlike public figures, whose statues often require permissions due to their potential impact on public sentiment and communal harmony, the installation of a statue representing one's cultural and national identity in a private space can be viewed through a different lens. While it is essential to respect local laws and community sentiments, the act of honoring Bharatha Matha is fundamentally an expression of love and pride. It serves as a reminder of the values and sacrifices associated with one's heritage,” the court said.

BJP had informed the court that it had brought the property in 2016 and constructed an office building. It was informed that an additional construction was also made in the property after getting necessary permission from concerned authority and a statue representing Bharatha Matha holding the flag in her hand was also installed. The party claimed that the state authorities had illegally entered the premises and taken away the statue.

The authorities on the other hand claimed that they were acting in compliance to an order of the High Court by which the court had directed that no new statue should be installed for any leader and that there must be proper maintenance of already established statue and those which have a proclivity to cause unrest should be relocated. The authorities claimed that the statue was removed to maintain peace and harmony in the society and that it had been safely kept in the office of the Revenue Department.

The court criticised the act of the authorities and remarked that the authorities had acted with high handedness due to pressure exerted elsewhere and such acts could never be tolerated by the constitutional courts and never be repeated.

“I have no doubts in my mind that the respondents have high-handedly taken away the statue of Bharatha Matha from a private property, probably due to pressure exerted elsewhere. This act on the part of the respondents is highly condemnable and should never be repeated in future. We are living in a welfare State which is governed by Rule of Law. Therefore, such high-handness can never be tolerated by a Constitutional Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

The court added that though previous orders of the court have emphasised that state could not prevent a political party from erecting statue in its private land, these decisions had no effect on the State and its officials. The court thus emphasised the necessity of the court to interfere as if it failed to perform its constitutional duty, the precious right of the citizen to enjoy his private property would be imperilled.

Thus, the court directed the authorities to hand over the statue to the party and gave liberty to the party to install the statue in its office premises.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Ananda Padmanaban Senior Counsel for Mr.Vanangamudi

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

Case Title: Bharathiya Janata Party v The District Collector and Others

Case No: W.P.(MD) No.20364 of 2023