Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ravi Kant & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S).266/2009
Decided On : 15-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR, Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv., Mr. Gopi Nagar, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Vinita Singh, Adv., Ms. Anchal Bindal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv., Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv., Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR, Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv., Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AOR, Mr. Gunnam Venkateshwara Rao, Adv., Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Adv., Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR, Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Adv., Mr. Sujay Jain, Adv., Mr. P C Sen, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv., Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv., Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv., Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv.
Public funds cannot be used for glorifying political leaders, ensuring compliance with electoral fairness principles.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation - Petitioners challenged the expenditure of public funds on statues and parks glorifying a political leader, alleging misuse of public resources and violation of the right to equality - The court noted that the Election Commission had previously addressed similar concerns regarding the use of public funds for political purposes. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Election Commission - The court emphasized the need for compliance with the Election Commission's guidelines regarding the use of public resources for political advertising, applicable to all political parties. (Paras 12-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, advocates by profession, filed a writ petition challenging the construction of statues and parks by the Uttar Pradesh government, alleging misuse of public funds for political glorification.
Findings of Court:
The court declined to adjudicate the prayers of the petitioners, noting that the Election Commission had already issued relevant guidelines.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of using public funds for constructing statues of political leaders and the implications for free and fair elections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Election Commission's guidelines must be adhered to by all political parties to prevent misuse of public funds for political gain.
Result: Writ Petition stands disposed of.
ORDER :
The present petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. According to the two petitioners, they are advocates by profession and have filed the present writ petition in public interest challenging the policy adopted by the erstwhile Government of Uttar Pradesh, headed by the then Chief Minister of the State Ms. Mayawati, respondent No.2 to construct large number of statues of the Chief Minister; construction of parks for the glorification of the Chief Minister and installation of large statues of elephants, which is also the election symbol of the political party to which the said Chief Minister belongs. The petitioners have contended that crores of public money were spent by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the construction of the aforementioned statues and parks using the funds from the state exchequer, only to benefit and glorify a particular individual and her party.
2. The petitioners contend that as per the State, it was an attempt to pay tribute to the great leaders of the Dalit community and was in line with the will of the founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Sh. Kanshiram, but the said explanation advanced by the State is incorrect and that it is only an arbitrary move to glorify the Chief Minister. These acts by the State Government amount to grabbing of public land and public parks.
3. The petitioners have further pointed out that in the construction of parks and memorials mentioned above, the election symbol allotted to BSP, i.e., the elephant, has been widely used. Big pillars having the motif of elephant have been put up across the parks and memorials being constructed. Also, a set of 90 elephant statues have been made at the cost of Rs. 52.2 crores from the public exchequer. Public display of these statues and their permanent positioning in parks is a clear violation of the principles of free and fair election as it has an impact during the election.
4. The petitioners state that the said Chief Minister, in addition to the wasteful expenditure on the construction of the symbols mentioned above, was even constructing huge stupas, domes and memorials for herself, including a park and a memorial beside the Yamuna River in the NCT of Delhi. This is contended to be a huge misuse of public funds, and that too by the state authorities, who, on the contrary have a constitutional duty to protect the public funds and hold the resources of the community in public trust. The respondent authorities are alleged to have acted in collusion with the State of Uttar Pradesh in this act of glorification of the Chief Minister and her political party. That the creation of parks and statues for an incumbent Chief Minister is against the basic structure of the constitution as it violates the right to equality and creates a special class of citizens.
5. In light of the same, the petitioner contended that if such unbridled action of a person in power is not checked, it will lead to replication of such arbitrary, fanciful & vague policies across the country among the people who are in power, which will be detrimental to the democratic and welfare fabric of the Constitution.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Election Commission; learned senior counsel for the respondent No.3; and learned ASG for respondent No.1. We have perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated what has been averred and submitted in their memorandum of writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, i.e., Ms. Mayawati, the former Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh filed the counter affidavit, wherein it was submitted that the present petition is politically motivated and is a gross abuse of process of law, which is reflected by the fact that the petitioners are not aggrieved by the expenditure on construction of statues and memorials by political parties across the country. That during the Chief Ministership of the resp
