Bombay High Court dismisses plea to remove statue of Maharshi Karve

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a 90-year-old woman seeking removal of the statue of Bharat Ratna recipient and social reformist Maharshi Dhondo Keshav Karve erected near her land in Pune [Indumati Borse vs Pune Municipal Corporation]..A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata noted that the petitioner, one Indumati Borse, owned a piece of land in Pune's Kothrud which she had rented out to an advertisement agency for erecting/displaying hoardings.In April 2023, the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) had ordered removal of some of the hoardings displayed on the petitioner's land as the same interfered with the ‘purity and beauty’ of the statue.The petitioner moved the Court stating that the statue was blocking the hoardings displayed on her land and that it was not the duty of the PMC to install statues. The bench, however, said the civic body certainly has to regard the public sentiment."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," the Court observed in the order passed on October 17.The bench highlighted the fact that Maharshi Karve was awarded India’s highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna, in 1958 on his 100th birthday. "In the petitioner’s pursuit of a very narrow, very private, and extremely income-oriented goal — the resurrection of the Ketki Ads hoardings from which she derives an income — should these wider concerns be allowed to be eclipsed on a thoroughly doctrinaire and self-serving reading of the statute?" the Court said..It further noted that nothing was shown to indicate that installation of statues by a public body is forbidden.It is well settled that 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 bench underscored."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 underlined..Further, the Court said that it was not dealing with a situation wherein the statue is proposed to be put up or has been put up on the petitioner’s private property. "It is not for the petitioner to dictate what the public purpose should be. This is more so after the process of acquisition (of part of her land by PMC to install statue) is complete. A public purpose may be changed at any time," the Court opined.If the statue is installed, it stands to reason that it cannot then be hidden behind a hoarding — and most certainly not because the petitioner wants an income from advertisement, the Court held. "That would defeat entirely the purpose of the statue. There is no merit in the petition. Just as there is no estoppel against a statute, there is also no estoppel against a statue," the Court said while dismissing the plea..Advocate Chandana Salgaocar appeared for the Petitioner.Advocates Abhijit Kulkarni, Gaurav Shahane and Krushna Jaybhay represented PMC.Additional Government Pleader AA Alaspurkar represented the State..[Read Order]