The Court upheld that the installation of a statue on private property constitutes a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, and cannot be regulated by the State without lawful justification.

ORDER :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Bharathiya Janatha Party represented by its District President seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to hand over the Bharatha Matha statue to the petitioner and to further forbear the respondents from interfering with the rights of the petitioner to install the statue of Bharatha Matha inside the party office premises situated at Survey No. 328/1B2, Kottaipatti Village, Virudhunagar District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the Bharathiya Janatha Party is a national level political party recognized by the Election Commission of India. A property was purchased in the name of the political party through a registered sale-deed dated 28.04.2016 which was registered as Document No.6020 of 2016. The patta was also transferred in favour of the petitioner in patta No.1314.

3. The petitioner constructed an office building in the said property and the same is effectively functioning for the past few years. Additional construction was also made by means of putting up a first floor after getting necessary permission from the concerned authority. Thereafter, a statue representing Bharatha Matha holding the flag in her hand was installed.

4. The petitioner has taken a specific stand that Bharatha Matha is a symbol of nation “India” and such statue was installed in the office premises as a symbolic representation of one nation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the ruling party in Tamil Nadu with the help of police made them enter the premises illegally and they took away the statue. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions. 5.The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. The first respondent has taken a stand that the Government of Tamil Nadu had accepted the guidelines given by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.22120 of 2022, dated 08.11.2022, whereby, a direction was given to the effect that no new statue should be installed for any leader, there must be proper maintenance of the already established statue and statues which has a proclivity of causing unrest should be relocated to other places. The counter-affidavit also takes note of G.O.(Ms) No.183, dated 23.05.2017 which talks about getting prior approval of the Government before installation of any statue. Insofar as a statue in a private patta land, the interim direction given by the Division Bench in the pending writ appeal in W.A. (MD) No.1386 of 2022 by order dated 17.11.2022 has been relied upon wherein, it has been directed that the authorities concerned must have vigil over the area where the statue is installed even in a private place and that no one must be permitted to install the statue without getting proper permission.

6. The first respondent has therefore taken a stand that in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was put on notice and since there was no response and in order to maintain peace and harmony in the society, the statue was removed and it has been safely kept in the office of the Revenue Department. Accordingly, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of this writ petition.

7. Heard Mr.Ananda Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8. This case raises an interesting issue concerning the boundaries of the right to freedom of speech and expression on private property. Does the power of t