Madras HC slams TN police over removal of Bharat Mata statue

The case raises an interesting issue concerning the boundaries of the right to freedom of speech and expression on private property, the court said.

The Madras high court on Wednesday came down heavily on Tamil Nadu police for their “high handedness” in removing a statue representing “Bharat Mata” from a Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) office and ordered the state to return the statue to the national party concluding that it’s not the business of the state to control affairs inside a private space.

The case raises an interesting issue concerning the boundaries of the right to freedom of speech and expression on private property, the court said. (PTI PHOTO)

Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madurai bench of the Madras high court said, “I have no doubts in my mind that the respondents have high-handedly taken away the statue of Bharat Mata from a private property, probably due to pressure exerted elsewhere. This act on the part of the respondents is highly condemnable and should never be repeated in future. We are living in a welfare state which is governed by (the) Rule of Law. Therefore, such high-handedness can never be tolerated by a Constitutional Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The property for the BJP office in this case was bought in Virudhunagar district in 2016 after which a statue representing Bharat Mata holding the flag in her hand was also installed.

The state had argued that they issued a notice to the petitioner (BJP) based on guidelines from a high court order in 2022 that no new statue should be installed for any leader, and that statues which have a proclivity of causing unrest should be relocated to other places. Since there was no response and in order to maintain peace and harmony in the society, the statue was removed and it has been kept safely in the office of the revenue department.

The BJP moved the court in this case taking a stand that Bharat Mata is a symbol of “India” and it was installed in their office premises as a symbolic representation of one nation. Their grievance in the writ petition also alleged that the ruling DMK government in Tamil Nadu made police enter the BJP premises illegally and to take away the statue.

The case raises an interesting issue concerning the boundaries of the right to freedom of speech and expression on private property, the court said. “No person in his right senses could seriously contend that expressing one’s patriotism and love for one’s country would imperil the interests of the State or the community,” justice Venkatesh said. “Ultimately, placing a statue of Bharat Mata in one’s garden, home is akin to creating a personal shrine that embodies hope, unity, and respect for the land. It invites reflection on the ideals of freedom, resilience, and cultural identity that Bharat Mata represents.”

He added that it is a “deeply personal and symbolic act” that reflects an individual’s reverence for their motherland. “Unlike public figures, whose statues often require permissions due to their potential impact on public sentiment and communal harmony, the installation of a statue representing one’s cultural and national identity in a private space can be viewed through a different lens,” the justice said. “While it is essential to respect local laws and community sentiments, the act of honouring Bharat Mata is fundamentally an expression of love and pride. It serves as a reminder of the values and sacrifices associated with one’s heritage.”

He cited a Supreme Court ruling that declared that the privacy of choice is directly protected by Articles 19(1)(a) to (c) and 21. “Consequently, the authority of the State must normally end where the boundaries of private property start,” the high court said. “No legislature or the executive should arrogate to themselves any power to interfere with the private affairs of a citizen or an association. It is not the business of the State and its officers to control or regulate the affairs inside the private space of a citizen. Such a course is constitutionally forbidden.”