Immerse Ganesha Idols Upto 6 Feet High In Artificial Tanks: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the immersion of all idols of up to six feet in height in artificial tanks starting from the 10-day Ganesh festival being celebrated from August 27 this year.
The order will be effective till March next year for the festivals that require immersion of idols of deities, including those made of Plaster of Paris (PoP).
"The court has to make an endeavour that the impact of immersion of idols is bare minimum on the environment. Therefore, idols up to 6 feet should compulsorily be immersed in artificial water tanks," a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said.
The high court further asked the state government to ensure implementation of its policy regarding immersion of idols in "letter and spirit".
All the local bodies must ensure that the idols, up to six feet in height, are immersed in artificial water bodies, the bench said.
The high court also asked the government to form an expert committee to suggest measures to recycle the PoP material used in making idols. The committee should also examine the scientific measures so that the idols can be dissolved in an eco-friendly manner.
The bench gave the ruling while hearing a bunch of petitions seeking implementation of the revised guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in regards to PoP idols.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
3 hours ago
- India.com
Speaking For Gaza Not Patriotism: Bombay HC Rejects CPI(M) Plea For Protest On Palestine Issue
The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) seeking to protest the alleged "genocide" in Gaza by Israel. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad stated that speaking for Gaza and Palestine is not patriotism and asked the petitioner to instead raise voices for causes within India. The bench also questioned why the petitioner does not focus on issues in their own country. "Our country has several issues to deal with... We don't want anything like this. I am sorry to say, you are all short-sighted... You are looking at Gaza and Palestine... Why don't you do something for our own country? Be patriots... Speaking for Gaza and Palestine is not patriotism... Speak up for the causes in our own country... Practice what you preach..." Live Law quoted Justice Ghuge as saying. The bench also expressed curiosity about why the party wants to protest something happening thousands of miles away rather than issues within India. "We are curious... You have no issues with respect to our own country... something productive for our own country... They are fighting 1,000s of miles away, and you are showing concern for Palestine, Gaza, etc. You can take up social and local issues like flooding, drainage getting blocked, illegal parking... Why aren't you protesting such issues?" Live Law quoted Justice Ghuge as saying. The bench asked the petitioner, "Do we have so much time to hear such a case when hundreds of cases of our citizens are listed?" "Do we have so much time to spend hearing such a matter when we have hundreds of cases of our citizens listed? Are these not our constitutional issues?" Live Law quoted Justice Ghuge as saying. Thousands of people in Gaza have lost their lives due to Israel's ground offensive and air strikes, which commenced in October 2023 as a reaction to Hamas' attacks on Israeli cities.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court orders notices to DVAC, Senthilbalaji on AIADMK advocate's plea to register FIR in alleged transformer procurement scam
The Madras High Court on Friday ordered notices to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) and former Electricity Minister V. Senthilbalaji in a new case seeking a probe into an alleged transformer procurement scam during his tenure. Justice P. Velmurugan recorded the submission of Advocate General P.S. Raman that he would be appearing on behalf of the DVAC and permitted senior counsel R. John Sathyan, representing the petitioner E. Saravanan of AIADMK advocates wing, to take private notice too, returnable by four weeks, to the former Minister. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that there had been a massive scam in procurement of electric transformers in the State between 2021 and 2023. He claimed that the entire process was carried out in violation of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act of 1998 and in collusion with the bidders. The petitioner claimed that the amounts quoted by the bidders clearly revealed cartelization. Yet, the government officials involved in the tender process had blindly accepted the tenders. The irregularities had led to monetary loss to the tune of ₹397 crore to the public exchequer, the petitioner complained. Stating that he had lodged a detailed complaint with the DVAC in May 2025, the petitioner said, the investigating agency had issued an acknowledgement but did not take any further action. He said the sleuths had not even bothered to summon him for an inquiry regarding the complaint. The petitioner urged the court to issue a direction to the DVAC to register a First Information Report based on his complaint and constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the issue. The A-G told the court that a similar plea filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam is already pending in the High Court.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹1 lakh cost
The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) on the procurement and supply of certain agricultural items, terming them 'totally baseless'. Finding no merit in the Public Interest Litigation and a writ petition filed against GR of March 12, 2024, the court also imposed a cost of one lakh on the petitioners. The pleas were dismissed by a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on July 22. As per the detailed order, made available on Friday, the bench ruled that the challenge to the government's decision was 'totally baseless and deserves rejection'. The court said it did not find any error in the GR concerning the procurement of five items under a special action plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds. 'Thus, no interference was warranted in the tender process implemented for procurement of the said items,' it said. The March 12, 2024, GR details the procurement and supply of five items – battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags – to farmers. 'The said petition is filed by an association of manufacturers of sprayers, who have no locus standi to challenge the implementation of special action plan by the state government,' the bench said. The court said that to protect their private interest, manufacturers and traders cannot be permitted to challenge the broader scheme to facilitate the productivity enhancement of the listed crop. The petitioners had contended that the five items were removed from an earlier GR dated December 5, 2016, which allowed farm subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme and were included in the new GR, which provides for their procurement through state agencies. The state agencies, including Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited, procured these items at 'exorbitant' rates, claimed the PIL. Senior advocate, Nikhil Sakhardande, who represented the petitioners, told the court that the DBT scheme was more beneficial to farmers, allowing them to purchase items at cheaper rates from local traders. The new system favoured large contractors, he argued. Appearing for the state government, senior advocate V.R. Dhond contended that the earlier GR operated under different objectives. He stated that the March 2024 GR was aimed at enhancing productivity and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseed crops, which he called a broader programme not limited to just product procurement. The HC accepted the state's arguments and said the two GRs operate in 'completely different and independent spheres' with distinct objectives. The petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up the two GRs which have no nexus with each other', it held. Further, the bench held that these 'baseless' petitions created hurdles in the effective implementation of the plan, aimed at giving impetus to the cultivation of specified crops and benefiting farmers. 'For this reason, also, while dismissing the petitions, we are inclined to impose costs (Rs 1 lakh) on the petitioners,' the court said.
