Karnataka HC Probes PIL on Dismantled Parashurama Statue, Blending Religious Rights and Public Trust Doctrines

BENGALURU — The Karnataka High Court has formally issued a notice to the state government, wading into a complex Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that intertwines allegations of public fraud with the fundamental right to religious freedom. The case, brought before a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi, centers on the controversial dismantling of a 33-foot statue of Lord Parashurama and the subsequent demand for its reconstruction using public funds.

The PIL, filed by Uday Shetty Muniyal, seeks a judicial directive compelling the state to reconstruct and reinstall the statue at the Parashurama Theme Park in Karkala, Udupi district. This development follows the petitioner's compliance with an earlier court order to deposit a substantial sum of ₹5 Lakh, a measure often employed by courts to establish the bona fides of a petitioner in public interest matters. With the deposit confirmed, the High Court has now officially brought the state government into the legal fray, scheduling the next hearing for December 10.

Background of the Controversy: A Monument Mired in Allegations

The Parashurama Theme Park, conceptualized as a significant cultural and religious landmark for the coastal Karnataka region, was inaugurated on January 27, 2023. Its centerpiece was a towering 33-foot bronze statue of Lord Parashurama, a revered figure in Hindu mythology believed to be the creator of the 'Parashurama Kshetra,' which encompasses the Tulu Nadu and Karavali coastal regions.

However, the monument's glory was short-lived. According to the petition, serious allegations of fraud and public endangerment soon surfaced. It was claimed that the statue was illicitly constructed using brass instead of the contractually mandated and more durable bronze. This alleged deception not only constituted a breach of public trust, as the project was funded by government departments with public money, but also posed a significant safety risk. Consequently, the state government ordered a CID investigation into the matter, and a separate complaint was lodged against the sculptor, Krishna Naik.

On October 12, 2023, less than nine months after its grand unveiling, the upper portion of the statue was dismantled and removed, leaving the theme park incomplete and, as the petitioner argues, deeply wounding the sentiments of local devotees.

"The plea claims that in a serious fraud, the statue was constructed using brass instead of bronze, endangering public safety and violating public trust."

The Core Legal Arguments: A Confluence of Constitutional and Administrative Law

The petition, filed by Advocate Srikanth V K on behalf of Muniyal, is built on a robust constitutional framework, primarily invoking Articles 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioner argues that the state's failure to maintain and properly reconstruct the statue amounts to a direct infringement on the religious rights of lakhs of Hindus in the region. The plea contends that the "installation, maintenance, and worship of the Parashurama statue in Karkala is an essential religious practice for devotees of the Parashurama Kshetra." By allowing the monument to remain in a state of disrepair, the plea asserts, the respondents "have blatantly ignored the importance of freedom of religion and the emphasis on its practice."

This constitutional challenge is coupled with an administrative law remedy. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the state to act on his representation, which calls for the issuance of fresh tenders and the engagement of a reputed sculptor to ensure the statue is rebuilt to proper specifications. This positions the case as a test of governmental accountability, questioning whether the state has a positive duty to rectify a situation born from alleged corruption and mismanagement of a public-funded religious and cultural project.

Judicial Scrutiny and the Bona Fides Deposit

The court's initial directive for the petitioner to deposit ₹5 Lakh is a noteworthy procedural aspect of this case. While PILs are a vital tool for ensuring public justice, courts are increasingly cautious about their potential misuse for political or personal motives. By requiring a significant financial deposit, the bench, led by Chief Justice Bakhru, signaled its intent to entertain only serious and genuine public interest claims. The petitioner’s prompt compliance with this directive has now paved the way for a substantive hearing on the merits.

"A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi had on the earlier hearing directed the petition to deposit Rs 5 Lakh with the high court registry within two weeks, to contribute towards raising the statue."

The petitioner, Uday Shetty Muniyal, is an active member of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee and was a candidate in the 2023 Assembly elections. While his political affiliations are part of the record, the legal examination will hinge not on his political standing but on the strength of the constitutional and administrative arguments presented.

Implications for Legal Professionals and Future Jurisprudence

This case presents a fascinating intersection of law, religion, and public administration, offering several points of interest for legal practitioners:

• Essential Religious Practices Test: The court's handling of the claim that the statue's maintenance is an "essential religious practice" will be closely watched. This doctrine has been the subject of extensive judicial debate, and its application to a modern, state-funded monument will add a new dimension to the jurisprudence.
• Public Trust and Government Contracts: The underlying allegations of fraud in a public works contract highlight the critical role of the Public Trust Doctrine. The case may serve as a precedent for how courts can be moved to compel government action to rectify breaches of this trust, especially when they intersect with constitutionally protected rights.
• The Role of PILs in Cultural and Religious Matters: The court's decision to issue a notice after securing a deposit affirms the PIL as a viable instrument for safeguarding cultural and religious heritage. However, its cautious approach also underscores the judiciary's gatekeeping role in preventing the weaponization of such litigation.

As the State of Karnataka prepares its response, the legal community will be observing how the High Court navigates the delicate balance between upholding religious freedoms, enforcing government accountability for the use of public funds, and ensuring public safety. The outcome of Uday Shetty Muniyal AND State of Karnataka & Others (WP 22881/2025) could have lasting implications for how such disputes are adjudicated in the future.