Ravi Kant vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 January, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Ravi Kant vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 January, 2025

                                                                 1

                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S).266/2009

     RAVI KANT & ANR.                                                                     PETITIONER(S)

                                                             VERSUS

     THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                                                    RESPONDENT(S)


                                                         O R D E R

The present petition has been filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India. According to the two petitioners, they

are advocates by profession and have filed the present writ

petition in public interest challenging the policy adopted by

the erstwhile Government of Uttar Pradesh, headed by the then

Chief Minister of the State Ms. Mayawati, respondent No.2 to

construct large number of statues of the Chief Minister;

construction of parks for the glorification of the Chief

Minister and installation of large statues of elephants, which

is also the election symbol of the political party to which the

said Chief Minister belongs. The petitioners have contended

that crores of public money were spent by the Government of

Uttar Pradesh in the construction of the aforementioned statues

and parks using the funds from the state exchequer, only to

benefit and glorify a particular individual and her party.

2.
Signature Not Verified
The petitioners contend that as per the State, it was an
Digitally signed by
GEETA JOSHI
Date: 2025.01.23
attempt
17:13:44 IST
Reason: to pay tribute to the great leaders of the Dalit

community and was in line with the will of the founder of the

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Sh. Kanshiram, but the said
2

explanation advanced by the State is incorrect and that it is

only an arbitrary move to glorify the Chief Minister. These

acts by the State Government amount to grabbing of public land

and public parks.

3. The petitioners have further pointed out that in the

construction of parks and memorials mentioned above, the

election symbol allotted to BSP, i.e., the elephant, has been

widely used. Big pillars having the motif of elephant have been

put up across the parks and memorials being constructed. Also,

a set of 90 elephant statues have been made at the cost of Rs.

52.2 crores from the public exchequer. Public display of these

statues and their permanent positioning in parks is a clear

violation of the principles of free and fair election as it has

an impact during the election.

4. The petitioners state that the said Chief Minister, in

addition to the wasteful expenditure on the construction of the

symbols mentioned above, was even constructing huge stupas,

domes and memorials for herself, including a park and a

memorial beside the Yamuna River in the NCT of Delhi. This is

contended to be a huge misuse of public funds, and that too by

the state authorities, who, on the contrary have a

constitutional duty to protect the public funds and hold the

resources of the community in public trust. The respondent

authorities are alleged to have acted in collusion with the

State of Uttar Pradesh in this act of glorification of the

Chief Minister and her political party. That the creation of
3

parks and statues for an incumbent Chief Minister is against

the basic structure of the constitution as it violates the

right to equality and creates a special class of citizens.

5. In light of the same, the petitioner contended that if

such unbridled action of a person in power is not checked, it

will lead to replication of such arbitrary, fanciful & vague

policies across the country among the people who are in power,

which will be detrimental to the democratic and welfare fabric

of the Constitution.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Election Commission;

learned senior counsel for the respondent No.3; and learned ASG

for respondent No.1. We have perused the material on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated what has

been averred and submitted in their memorandum of writ

petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, i.e., Ms.

Mayawati, the former Chief Minister of the State of Uttar

Pradesh filed the counter affidavit, wherein it was submitted

that the present petition is politically motivated and is a

gross abuse of process of law, which is reflected by the fact

that the petitioners are not aggrieved by the expenditure on

construction of statues and memorials by political parties

across the country. That during the Chief Ministership of the

respondent No. 2, the State Government has constructed

memorials at Lucknow and Noida in honor of the lives and
4

memories of various sants, gurus and social reformers and

leaders such as Tathagat Gautam Buddha, Sant Kabir Das, Sant

Ravidas, Guru Ghasidas, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Rajarshi

Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj, Shri Birsa Munda, Shri Narayan

Guru, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, Shri Kanshiram etc. who devoted

their entire life for humanity, equality and social justice.

That these memorials have their statues, different murals made

of bronze and museum depicting their biography. That these

memorials are intended to promote the values and ideals of

various Sants, Gurus and social reformers and leaders among the

public and not intended to promote the symbol of BSP or to

glorify the chief minister herself. That the funds for the

construction of the said memorials and installation of statues

have been sanctioned through budgetary allocation after

approval of the budget by the State Legislature and the passing

of relevant Appropriation Act by the State Legislature in

accordance with the Constitution of India and the Rules. With

respect to the statues of ‘elephants’ as a means of promoting

the BSP, the respondent No. 2 submitted that elephants are a

part of the Indian architectural designs and are found in a

number of monuments and heritage structures, and therefore,

their correlation to the election symbol of BSP is totally

misconceived. Further, reliance was placed on Article 282 of

the Constitution of India to contend that the power of the

Union or State Legislature is not limited to the legislative

powers to incur expenditure only in respect of powers conferred

upon it under the Seventh Schedule, but it can incur
5

expenditure on any purpose not included within its legislative

powers.

8. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, i.e., the Bahujan

Samaj Party, has also filed their counter affidavit. They have

raised objections to the maintainability of such a writ

petition and have reiterated the position taken by the

respondent no. 1 and 2 as stated above, and have drawn

parallels with other political parties in the country who also

spend considerable amount on the glorification of their

political leaders.

9. We have perused the material on record.

10. It is stated at the Bar, that the prayers sought for by

the petitioner in this writ petition said to have been filed in

Public Interest are as under:

“1. To issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondent to stop the further construction and
expenditure of public fund for building and
installing statues of the incumbent chief
minister and party symbol of Bahujan Samaj Party
in Public Land.

2. To issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondent to remove the statues of the incumbent
Chief Minister and the Party symbol of Bahujan
Samaj Party from public land.

3. To issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate
the misuse of public fund.

4. To issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Bahujan Samaj Party and the Chief Minister to
compensate the state exchequer for the misuse of
public money by them.

6

5. To issue guidelines for building of memorials
and installation of Statue of National Leaders of
public places by the State.

6. To issue any other order(s), direction (s) as
your lordship may deem fit and appropriate.”

11. It is now submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for

the respondent No. 4 that the ECI has duly considered the

petitions filed by the petitioners and has passed appropriate

orders. The counsel submitted a compilation of documents for

the perusal of this Court and the same was taken on record. The

said compilation contains orders passed by respondent No. 4 in

the complaints filed against the respondent No. 1 and 2,

including the complaint filed by the petitioners herein.

12. From the perusal of such documents, it is observed that by

the order dated 11.10.2010, the respondent No. 4-Commission has

refused the petitioners the reliefs sought by them. The ECI

held that on the basis of the facts available and the records

adduced, the ECI is not in a position to gauge the impact of

the construction of statues and the extent of such impact on

the minds of the electors. Therefore, before taking any

decision with regard to the withdrawal of the symbol of

‘elephant’ allotted to a national political party, the

Commission has to carefully weigh the implications which such

withdrawal may have and the confusion that may be caused in the

minds of millions of electors across the party who identify

that party with the symbol of ‘elephant’. Therefore, the ECI

held the reliefs sought by the petitioners as not capable of

being granted and the petitions filed were not maintainable.
7

However, the ECI has assured that at the time of elections,

they would no doubt take appropriate steps and measures to see

that the statues of Ms. Mayawati and BSP’s symbol ‘elephant’ do

not disturb the level playing field and give undue advantage to

the BSP vis-à-vis other political parties.

13. The said order of the ECI, dated 11.10.2010, was

challenged before the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)

No.8363/2010. Meanwhile, this Court in the case of Common Cause

Vs. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 1, had the occasion to deal

with a public interest litigation seeking restraint on the

Union of India and the State Governments from using public

funds on government advertisements which were primarily

intended to project individual functionaries of the Government

or a political party. This Court had constituted a Committee to

suggest guidelines to regulate government action in the matter,

so as to prevent misuse/wastage of public funds in connection

with such advertisements and by the said judgment, this Court

approved of the guidelines framed, inter alia, to the effect

that the government advertising must not be directed at

promoting political interest of a political party.

14. The High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment dated

07.07.2016, finally disposed of W.P.(C) No.8363/2010 that had

challenged the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the ECI, with a

request to the ECI to consider issuing appropriate

direction/guideline within the meaning of Clause 16A(b) of the

Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, preventing a
8

recognized political party in power from using public places

and public funds for propagating its reserve symbol and/or its

leaders, so as to come in the way of conducting of free, fair

and peaceful election and to safeguard the interest of the

general public and the electorate in future. The High Court

further requested the ECI to thereafter consider whether the

actions already taken by the respondent BSP and as complained

of by the petitioner(s) are in violation of the said guideline

and if it finds so, to give an opportunity to the respondent

BSP to undo the same and if the respondent BSP does not avail

of the said opportunity, to initiate proceedings under Clause

16A of the Symbols Order for withdrawal of recognition thereof.

15. In compliance with the aforesaid directions of the High

Court of Delhi, the ECI first issued an instruction on

07.10.2016 vide letter No. 56/4LET/ECI/FUNC/FP/PPS-11/2015

addressed to the political parties to the effect that no

political party shall henceforth either use or allow the use of

any public funds or public place or government machinery for

carrying out any activity that would amount to advertisement

for the party or propagating the election symbol allotted to

the party. Secondly, the ECI passed an order dated 05.01.2017,

after taking into consideration the views and comments of the

BSP, and held that the construction of the statues in question

was carried out in the 2009-10 period and therefore the

instructions issued now in 2016 cannot be enforced

retrospectively so as to take action against the BSP. The ECI
9

also observed that in light of the judgment of the High Court

and direction of the ECI dated 07.10.2016, any activity using

public funds or government resources for propagating election

symbol of any party, either by the party itself or by the

government, could invite action against the party.

16. In light of the facts, circumstances and developments

discussed above and having heard learned counsel and learned

senior counsel for the respective parties, we are not inclined

to consider or adjudicate upon any of the aforesaid prayers.

17. Hence, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

18. However, it is necessary to observe that the instructions

issued by ECI on 07.10.2016 or its modified or substituted

version referred to above shall be complied with not only by

respondent No.2 but all political parties in the country.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

……………………………………………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 15, 2025.

10

ITEM NO.59                COURT NO.8               SECTION PIL-W

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S).266/2009

RAVI KANT & ANR. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

(IA NO. 4/2010 – DIRECTIONS
IA NO. 2/2009 – DIRECTIONS
IA NO. 6/2015 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA NO. 5/2010 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA NO. 44086/2019 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA NO. 86750/2017 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 15-01-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR
Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.

Mr. Gopi Nagar, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

Ms. Vinita Singh, Adv.

Ms. Anchal Bindal, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv.

Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR

Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Gunnam Venkateshwara Rao, Adv.

Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Adv.

11

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Adv.

Mr. Sujay Jain, Adv.

Mr. P C Sen, Sr. Adv.

Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.

Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv.

Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv.

Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the signed

order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI)                      (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                             COURT MASTER (NSH)
                  (signed order is placed on file)