Relocation of Unauthorized Statue Obstructing Public Way Upheld by AP High Court: HC Mandates Adherence to State Guidelines - 2026-05-06

Unauthorized Installations and Public Pathways: AP High Court Rules on Statue Dispute

In a significant ruling concerning public order and the regulation of state property, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has directed the removal and relocation of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar statue in Jaladurgam Village, Nandyal District. The bench, led by Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Mr. Justice Ninala Jayasurya, examined the chaotic circumstances surrounding the statue's installation, which occurred in the middle of a narrow twelve-foot road without requisite official permission.

The Midnight Installation: A Chronology of Disputes

The case originated from a writ petition challenging the inaction of local authorities regarding a statue installed overnight. The appellants, a group of villagers, argued that a gram sabha resolution had previously allocated land for the memorial. However, the Gram Panchayat later cancelled this resolution due to community objections. Despite the cancellation and ongoing proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC—invoked to maintain public tranquility—appellants persisted in erecting the statue in the middle of a road.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

Appellants contended that no permission was legally required for such installations, citing the precedent in Nelakudithi Venkatapathi Rao vs State of A.P. . They further alleged that the statue did not obstruct traffic. Conversely, the Gram Panchayat and the Government Pleader argued that the installation was entirely unauthorized, erected in violation of public order, and served as an illegal encroachment on a public thoroughfare.

The court rejected the appellants' reliance on the Nelakudithi Venkatapathi Rao case, noting that the facts of the current dispute—specifically the lack of permission and the obstruction of a public passage—distinguished it entirely from the cited precedent, which dealt with non-obstructive sites.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling highlighted the necessity of regulatory compliance over emotive installations:

• "In view of cancellation of earlier resolution dated 22.12.2022, which is not disputed by appellants, reliance on said resolution or Endorsement dated 24.12.2022 is of no consequence."
• "Installation of statue was carried out not only without any permission, but also without regard to orders under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. issued to avoid commotion and disturbance to public peace and tranquillity in the village."
• "Shifting of statue sub-serves interest of villagers at large."

Judicial Mandate: Respectful Relocation

While the court upheld the single judge’s order to remove the statue, it exercised judicial discretion to ensure the process was carried out with dignity. The division bench directed the District Collector and relevant authorities to ensure the statue is shifted "with due respect, care and caution."

The authorities have been granted a two-month window to relocate the statue to a safe, sanctioned area until a legitimate identification of an alternative site can be established. This decision reinforces the legal principle that while cultural and community symbols are valued, they must adhere to defined administrative processes, particularly regarding the use of public infrastructure.

Implications for Future Cases

This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for local committees and overzealous groups. It reinforces that unauthorized encroachment on public roads, even under the banner of civic or historical commemoration, remains subject to state regulatory frameworks. By prioritizing public access and safety, the court has underlined that the rule of law must dictate the geography of public space.