Bombay High Court Dismisses Nonagenarian's Plea To Remove Statue Of Bharat Ratna Awardee Maharshi Karve In Pune

A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata stated that a memorial or a monument is sufficiently a public purpose, which need not only be a public utility, and the petitioner did not show that installation of statues by a public body is forbidden.

“After all, why should later and successive generations not know of Maharshi Karve and his outstanding work in social reform and women’s welfare? He advocated the rights of widows, long oppressed and subjugated; in 1916, he founded the first women’s university in India, the SNDT Women’s University; and much more. He was awarded India’s highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna, in 1958 on his 100th birthday (he passed four years later, in November 1962)”, the court further observed.

The petitioner, Indumati Borse, aged 90, filed the writ petition against the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) challenging the installation of a statue of Maharshi Dhondo Keshav Karve on the Kothrud Karve Road in Pune.

The petitioner's land was partially acquired for road widening. She gave a license to ad agency Ketli Ads to put up hoarding on the remaining land. She claimed that the visibility of the hoarding is impaired due to the statue's presence. Thus, she sought removal of the statue, restoration of possession of the land to her, and quashing of a PMC order of April 10, 2023, directing removal of the hoardings claiming that they interfered with the ‘purity and beauty’ of the statue.

Advocate Chandana Salgaocar for the petitioner argued that the installation of statues does not fall within the scope of the municipal corporation's duties or functions under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MMC Act).

The PMC in its reply affidavit stated that the statue was relocated from its earlier spot to its current location for better traffic management.

The court noted that the petitioner's primary concern appeared to be the visibility of the hoarding and the income derived from it, rather than any genuine public interest issue.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the installation of statues did not fall within the municipal corporation's statutory duties. The court said that the power to install statues could be construed as part of the discretionary powers of the corporation under Section 66(42) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, particularly if it contributes to public safety, health, convenience, or instruction.

The court cited various previous judgments to highlight that the installation of memorials and statues is generally considered a matter of executive discretion and serves to honour significant contributions to society. While the installation of the statue may not be a civic duty, it was done to served public sentiment, which is a matter of convenience or instruction, the court held.

“…a memorial, a monument, or any other mark or built structure is sufficiently a public purpose. There is no law that states that a public purpose must only be a public utility, such as a dam or a bridge. The business of the Government concerns a wide range of activity. As stated already, every government also must deal — necessarily — with public and popular sentiment and the emotive needs or desires, expectations and demands of citizens”, the court added.

The court also highlighted that the installation of the statue did not occur on the petitioner's private property and the acquisition of her land was valid and unchallenged. The court reinforced that the public purpose could be altered over time and that the authority had the discretion to determine the purpose of the acquisition, including its use as a memorial. “It is not for the Petitioner to dictate what the public purpose should be”, said the court.

The court dismissed the challenge to the impugned order directing removal of the hoardings, highlighting that the petitioner lacked locus standi as the hoarding license belonged to Ketki Ads, which had filed its proceedings separately. The court stressed that the grant of a hoarding license was subject to various conditions and considerations, and the petitioner had no inherent right to demand the reinstatement of the hoarding license, especially to serve her financial interests, which would contradict the purpose of the statue.

The court found the petitioner's claim lacked merit and dismissed the writ petition.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 8979 of 2023

Case Title – Indumati Borse v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment