Supreme Court to Examine Legality of Bombay High Court's Revival of Plaster of Paris Idols

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has stepped into a significant environmental law controversy, issuing a notice on a Special Leave Petition that challenges the Bombay High Court's interim orders permitting the use of Plaster of Paris (PoP) for manufacturing and immersing religious idols. The case, Rohit Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors , places the binding nature of national pollution control guidelines directly under the apex court's lens.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has sought a response within four weeks, signaling a deeper examination of a matter that pits religious practices against established environmental norms. The petition specifically targets two interim orders from the Bombay High Court, dated June 9, 2025, and July 24, 2025, which effectively rolled back a prohibition on PoP idols in Maharashtra.

The legal battle stems from the Central Pollution Control Board's (CPCB) "Revised Guidelines for Idol Immersion" of May 12, 2020. These guidelines, formulated to mitigate the severe pollution of water bodies caused by idol immersions, explicitly recommend the use of natural, biodegradable materials and prohibit the use of PoP, a non-biodegradable material composed primarily of calcium sulfate hemihydrate. The immersion of PoP idols leads to the leaching of harmful chemicals like gypsum, sulfur, and magnesium, drastically increasing water hardness, turbidity, and toxicity, thereby endangering aquatic ecosystems.

The High Court's Contentious Reversal

The genesis of the current appeal lies in the Bombay High Court's own prior orders. Initially, on January 30, 2025, the High Court had upheld the CPCB guidelines and prohibited the use of PoP. However, in its subsequent order on June 9, the Court modified this stance, allowing PoP idol manufacturing but with a caveat that immersion in natural water bodies would require the court's prior leave.

This position was further relaxed in the July 24 order, where the High Court permitted the State's "Idol Immersion Policy" to continue until March 2026. Critically, this policy allows for the immersion of PoP idols taller than five feet into natural water bodies, provided municipal authorities later retrieve them. The High Court also increased the permissible height of these idols from five to six feet.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Srishti Agnihotri, argues that these orders create a dangerous environmental precedent and directly contravene national law. The petition forcefully contends, “The impugned orders, if allowed to stand, will not only cause irreparable damage to natural water bodies across Maharashtra but will also set a dangerous precedent undermining the sanctity of environmental guidelines issued by statutory authorities.”

Core Legal Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The appeal before the Supreme Court hinges on several critical questions of environmental and administrative law that will have far-reaching implications.

1. Are CPCB Guidelines Merely Advisory?

The central legal issue is the characterization of the CPCB guidelines. The petitioner argues that the High Court fundamentally erred by treating them as merely advisory. The appeal posits that these guidelines were issued under the statutory authority of Section 16 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. As such, they are not mere suggestions but binding instruments intended to give effect to the Act's objectives.

The petition highlights a history of judicial affirmation, noting that the National Green Tribunal (NGT), various High Courts, and even the Supreme Court have previously upheld these or similar guidelines as mandatory and enforceable. The challenge contends that the Bombay High Court's departure from this established jurisprudence lacks a sound legal basis.

2. The Reliance on an "Oral Statement"

A particularly troubling aspect raised in the petition is the procedural basis for the High Court's decision. The plea submits that the High Court's shift in position was influenced by an "oral statement" from CPCB representatives, who allegedly suggested a change in the board's stance on the binding nature of its own guidelines.

The petitioner argues that allowing a formal, gazetted statutory guideline to be diluted or overridden by an unrecorded oral submission in court, without a formal affidavit or an official amendment to the guidelines, is a legally untenable practice. It undermines the principles of administrative certainty and the rule of law. The Supreme Court will now be called upon to decide whether such a procedural approach by a High Court is permissible.

3. Violation of the Precautionary Principle and Article 21

The petition is firmly rooted in constitutional and environmental law principles. It asserts that the High Court's orders violate the "Precautionary Principle," a cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence that mandates state action to prevent environmental degradation even in the absence of absolute scientific certainty about the harm. By permitting the large-scale immersion of a known pollutant, the High Court, it is argued, has failed to apply this principle.

Furthermore, the appeal directly invokes Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life and personal liberty has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. The petition argues that the impugned orders "directly imperil the right to a clean and healthy environment, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Impracticality of State Policy

The petitioner also challenges the practicality and environmental efficacy of the Maharashtra government's Idol Immersion Policy. The policy's core idea—allowing immersion followed by retrieval—is decried as "impractical" and "environmentally harmful." The argument is that once PoP dissolves, it is impossible to fully "retrieve" the pollutants. The insoluble particulate matter and leached chemicals disperse, causing irreversible damage to the aquatic environment long before any physical remnants of the idol can be removed.

The Supreme Court is now tasked with weighing these substantial legal and environmental arguments. Its decision will not only determine the fate of water bodies in Maharashtra but will also clarify the hierarchy and enforceability of environmental regulations issued by statutory bodies like the CPCB across the country. The case, SLP(C) No. 23621-23622/2025 , is set to become a pivotal chapter in India's ongoing struggle to balance cultural traditions with constitutional environmental mandates.