State-wide Enforcement Mandate Against Unauthorized Statue Installation on Public Property – Commentary on Rajesh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 MPHC-IND 16939)

1. Introduction

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh is a 2025 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered by the Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi. The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, approached the Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining that a group of persons intended to install a statue in public places within the territorial limits of Nagar Parishad Makdone – an act allegedly impermissible in law.

The key issue before the Court was whether private individuals or associations can install statues on public roads, crossings or other public utility spaces, and, if not, what preventive measures the State must undertake to ensure compliance with existing judicial directions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

While disposing of the petition, the Bench did not grant any new substantive relief to the petitioner mainly because the Nagar Parishad’s own resolution dated 29 November 2023 had already put the proposal on hold. However, by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction, the Court:

• Reiterated and adopted the directions previously issued in Greeshm Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019).
• Directed the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh to circulate the Greeshm Jain order to all local bodies (Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads, and Gram Panchayats).
• Clarified that apart from the State Government and its local bodies, no private group, association, NGO or religious entity is authorised to install statues in public places.
• Disposed of the PIL without costs, emphasising compliance rather than punitive action in the present instance.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Greeshm Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 24323/2019 (PIL) – Division Bench M.P. High Court.
   Relevance: This case issued a comprehensive mandamus directing the removal of statues erected on or after 18 January 2013 on public roads and prohibiting any future installations. It also imposed exemplary costs on erring officials. The Court in Rajesh Kumar treats the Greeshm Jain directions as binding statewide precedents that are to be operationalised through administrative circulation.
2. Union of India v. State of Gujarat & Ors., SLP (C) 8519/2006, interim restraint order dated 18 January 2013 (Supreme Court).
   Relevance: The apex court had restrained installation of statues on public roads. This formed the constitutional backdrop for the Greeshm Jain decision and now for Rajesh Kumar.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is short yet methodical:

• Binding Precedent: Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a division bench’s earlier pronouncement (Greeshm Jain) is binding on coordinate benches unless overruled by a larger bench or the Supreme Court. Since the State had not challenged that order, it stood unassailable.
• Public Trust Doctrine: Public roads and utility spaces are held by the State in trust for its citizens. Any encroachment or exclusive appropriation of such property – including by installing statues – violates that doctrine.
• Article 226 Prophylactic Jurisdiction: The Court exercised its writ powers not only to redress the petitioner’s grievance but also to proactively forestall contempt of court and potential public inconvenience by mandating wide circulation of the prior directives.
• Separation Between State Action and Private Action: By explicitly stating that only the State and local bodies may install statues, the Bench demarcated governmental acts from private acts, thereby preventing arbitrary occupation of public land.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The decision, though brief, carries far-reaching consequences:

• Administrative Standardisation: Local bodies across Madhya Pradesh are now under a court-mandated obligation to conform to a uniform policy on statues. Failure to comply can invite contempt proceedings.
• Enhanced Public Spaces Governance: Civil society groups and political/religious outfits are effectively barred from using public property for memorialisation without statutory sanction.
• Template for Other States: Other High Courts may adopt similar circulation orders, transforming a judicial recommendation into a nationally harmonised norm for public-space management.
• Potential Litigation Reduction: With clear directions in place, frivolous or repetitive PILs concerning statue installation may decline, saving judicial time.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A legal action initiated to protect or enforce rights of the public at large, not merely private or individual interests.
• Article 226 (Writ Jurisdiction): Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. Common writs include mandamus (command), prohibition (restraint), and certiorari (judicial review).
• Mandamus: An order compelling a public authority to perform a statutory duty. Here, the Court directed the State to circulate earlier orders and remove/prohibit statues.
• Stare Decisis: A doctrine obligating courts to follow precedents set by higher or coordinate benches to ensure legal consistency.
• Public Trust Doctrine: Principle that the State holds natural resources and public utilities in trust for citizens and must protect them from private encroachment.
• Contempt of Court: Disobedience or disregard for court orders which can attract penalties including fines and imprisonment.

5. Conclusion

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh is a pivotal reaffirmation of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s commitment to protecting public spaces from unauthorised appropriation. By mandating the State’s highest administrative authority to disseminate and enforce the earlier Greeshm Jain directives, the judgment converts judicial pronouncements into an operational protocol. The decision underscores three critical takeaways:

1. Exclusive Authority: Only the State and its statutory local bodies may authorise or install statues in public areas, thereby preventing private encroachments.
2. Binding Precedent Enforcement: Once judicial directions attain finality, executive inaction is not tolerated; active dissemination is mandated.
3. Broader Significance: The ruling strengthens the jurisprudence on public property management and can serve as a model for other jurisdictions confronting similar issues of public-space encroachment.

Future courts and administrators are likely to cite this case for its clear articulation of the limits on private occupation of public spaces and the affirmative duty of the State to protect communal assets.