High Court reiterates creation of ‘leaders parks' for installation of statues instead of public places
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has reiterated the creation of 'leaders parks' across Tamil Nadu for installation of new statues and relocation of existing statues for which permission was already granted.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that instead of installing statues of leaders in public places, the court had elaborately considered the issue and directed the government to identify lands for creation of the required number of 'leaders parks' across the State.
Accordingly, permissions have already been granted and statues are to be relocated in the 'leaders parks'.
The formation of 'leaders parks' would be of much benefit to youth as they can learn about the ideas and ideologies of the leaders.
Instead of making concrete efforts for the formation of 'leaders parks', the government cannot issue orders granting permission to install statues in public places, the court observed.
On account of heavy traffic congestion and other mitigating factors, the general public are put to hardship in the event of granting such permission to install statues in public places.
The rights of citizens in all respects guaranteed under the Constitution are to be protected by the State, the court observed.
The Supreme Court had passed an order directing no further installation of statue or construction of any structure on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places are to be permitted.
A Division Bench of Madras High Court also passed orders. When the Supreme Court passed an order not to grant permission to install statues in public places, the State government cannot pass orders granting such permission, the court observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Palsamy of Tirunelveli district who had sought a direction to restrain the authorities from installing a bronze statue and name board of the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi near the entrance of Valliyoor daily vegetable market in Valliyoor in Tirunelveli district.
The State submitted that instruction had been issued to the Collector not to install the statue of the former Chief Minister and action will be taken to withdraw the G.O. issued. The court posted the matter for reporting compliance on July 16.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Indian courts today are not defending free speech. They are managing it. And in this curious inversion of constitutional values, we are witnessing a quiet retreat from the principle that animated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: that speech, even provocative, offensive, or unsettling, is the citizen's shield against tyranny — not its tool. Once envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark of our democracy, the judiciary now increasingly resembles an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies and deference in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. But when courts focus on what was said rather than why the right to say it must be protected, the Republic is left vulnerable to a new tyranny: that of sentiment, outrage, and the lowest tolerance denominator. Let us begin with a chillingly ordinary example: a social media post by a 24-year-old man criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi. after the ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Was this tasteless? Perhaps. But taste is not a constitutional metric. The Allahabad High Court thought otherwise. In rejecting the plea to quash the first information report (FIR), the Bench declared that 'emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute'. That is a remarkable formulation. It subtly inverts the constitutional design: the citizen is no longer the source of power holding the state to account, but a child to be reprimanded for speaking too freely. A validation of outrage Instead of interpreting Article 19(1)(a) as a liberty that limits state power, courts have begun treating it as a licence that comes with behavioural conditions — conditions defined not by law but by the perceived dignity of public figures and institutions. Take the Kamal Haasan controversy in connection with his film, Thug Life. The actor made a remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil. The Karnataka High Court responded not by evaluating whether the actor's statement met the threshold of incitement, defamation, or hate, but by advising him to apologise to the 'sentiments of the masses'. This advice is corrosive. When courts suggest apologies for lawful speech, they set a precedent that expression must pass a popularity test. They validate the very outrage that threatens free speech, rather than shielding expression from it. An apology does not close the loop but only widens it, inviting further claims of offence. In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs Union Of India, the 'digital content creator and podcaster' was confronted with judicial comments bordering on cultural supervision for his use of explicit language in a podcast. The court directed the Union to clarify whether such 'vulgar' language fell outside constitutional protection. Here again, the concern was not whether the speech incited harm, but on whether it offended prevailing norms of taste and modesty — a dangerously subjective threshold. Similarly, historian and a professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, was dragged into proceedings after sharing critical views on the optics of India using a woman soldier to explain its war situation with Pakistan. The argument was that his comments hurt sentiments. That it even reached court underscores the problem: invoking hurt feelings is now sufficient to invite judicial scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech. The professor's scholarly critique became a matter for judicial assessment and a special investigation to assess whether there was any dog whistle intent that played on the fragility of the audience. A misreading Two disturbing patterns emerge from these cases. First, the judiciary is increasingly equating speech that provokes emotional reactions with legally actionable harm. This misreads the Constitution and the rationale of a democracy. The test for restricting speech under Article 19(2) is not whether it angers, irritates, or offends but whether it incites violence, hatred or disrupts public order. Second, by encouraging apologies and moral policing of language, courts create a perverse incentive. The more outrage a comment generates, the more likely it is to be litigated. This does not protect society. It emboldens mobs and serial litigants. It creates a market for offence. This shift is starkly evident in cases that involve the armed forces. In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court denied the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, relief in a defamation case on his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army . The High Court said that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to 'defame' the military. But defamation, as a legal standard, must be carefully assessed particularly when invoked by or on behalf of state institutions by busy-bodies. Likewise, in a previous first information report against a man using the word 'coward' to describe the Prime Minister after the recent military stand-down, the court saw no issue with Sections 152 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being invoked — laws meant for threats to sovereignty and public mischief . These laws, meant for sedition-like scenarios, are being contorted to punish sarcasm and satire. It is telling that courts will routinely deny the quashing of FIRs in such cases, claiming that it is too early to interfere and that police investigations must run their course. But this abdication is neither neutral nor passive. For the citizen facing criminal prosecution, the process itself is the punishment. The system does not need a conviction to chill speech. A summons and a charge sheet do the job. The Madras High Court has occasionally resisted this drift. But this was more about narrative correction than structural protection of speech. Courts in India must return to a principle-centric model of speech protection. Instead of obsessing over what was said, they must ask whether the speaker's right was violated, and not someone else's sentiment. Apologies should not be judicial recommendations. They should be individual choices. Otherwise, courts become confessional booths where speech is absolved not by legal reasoning but by remorse. And remorse demanded is remorse devalued — it empowers the outraged, not the rational. The signal to the citizen Moreover, as long as laws such as sedition or the ever-morphing public order clauses remain vague, courts must lean toward liberty. The doctrine of 'chilling effect' that is robust in American and European jurisprudence, has been acknowledged in India's courts but seldom enforced with spine. This is not just about high-profile speech or celebrities. It is about the slow attrition of constitutional confidence. When a YouTuber is told to bleep a joke, or a professor is dragged to court for a tweet, or a film-maker is told to grovel for linguistic pride the signal to the ordinary citizen is clear: express only what is safe, bland and agreeable. But democracies are not built on agreeable speech. They thrive on disagreement — noisy, rude, even reckless at times. The test of a society's strength is not how well it tolerates politeness, but how it handles provocation. Free speech is not just about giving offence, but about withstanding it. If India is to preserve its democratic soul, it must restore the dignity of dissent. It must not demand the dignity of institutions at the cost of liberty. Judges are the guardians of the Constitution, and not the curators of culture. They must protect the right to speak and not the comfort of the listener. Because when speech is chilled in courtrooms, freedom dies not with a bang, but with a sigh of deference. The new age of judicial sensitivity to sentiments is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of regression. It confuses harmony with homogeneity, and respect with restraint. Apologies should never be a legal strategy. And speech should not need blessings to be legitimate. Let our courts not forget that the Republic was not born from politeness but from protest. The Constitution came from the pen of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also wrote, '…the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible'. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC rejects youth's plea for quashing of FIR for post against PM
1 2 Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has dismissed a petition filed by a 24-year-old man seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him over his alleged social media posts on Prime Minister Narendra Modi following the India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement on May 10, 2025, after four days of intense military confrontation. Though the petitioner's counsel argued that the alleged posts had been made after he was carried away by emotions, a division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Anil Kumar, rejected this submission on June 3. The bench observed, "A post written by the petitioner against the Prime Minister regarding his decision to desist from war etc. carries scurrilous language against the head of the government. Emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute by employment of disrespectful words. " Furthermore, the court said that it was not a fit case to interfere with the impugned FIR in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Ajeet Yadav, is facing an FIR under sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 152 (act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), 196 (1) (promoting enmity between different groups), 353 (2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) over three alleged posts he made on Facebook. In the alleged social media posts, the 24-year-old man purportedly used several derogatory terms directed at the PM.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Emotions Must Not Overflow': Court Dismisses Plea To Quash FIR For Online Post Against PM Modi
Last Updated: During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that his client Ajeet Yadav (24) put up the post after getting carried away by emotions. The Allahabad High Court rejected a plea to quash an FIR filed against a petitioner over an alleged Facebook post criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, made following the suspension of military operations between India and Pakistan on May 10. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that his client Ajeet Yadav (24) put up the post after getting carried away by emotions. Rejecting the submission, a division bench comprising Justices J J Munir and Anil Kumar said, 'The post written by the petitioner against the prime minister carried scurrilous language against the head of the government." 'Emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute by the use of disrespectful words." The court dismissed the plea saying it was not a fit case to interfere with the FIR in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Yadav has been booked for his Facebook post under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for reportedly using derogatory language targeting the prime minister for the halt in military action between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people on April 22.
