New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticised the Tamil Nadu government for its proposal to install a statue of late Chief Minister M Karunanidhi at a public market in Tirunelveli, questioning the use of taxpayer money for glorifying political leaders.
Apex court questions use of public funds
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra pulled up the state government for spending public money on statues and memorials. “It is not permitted. Why are you using public funds for glorifying your former leaders?” the bench observed.
The court asked the state to withdraw its plea and instead approach the Madras High Court for relief. With this, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the earlier stand taken by the High Court against such installations in public places.
Case background
The Tamil Nadu government had sought permission to erect a bronze statue and name board of Karunanidhi near the entrance arch of the Valliyoor Daily Vegetable Market on the main road in Tirunelveli district. The plea was moved after the Madras High Court rejected the proposal citing inconvenience to the public.
The High Court had noted that installations of statues and memorials in public spaces often lead to traffic congestion and obstruct citizens’ movement. It emphasised that the rights of the people must take precedence over political commemorations.
High Court’s earlier observations
In its earlier ruling, the Madras High Court had highlighted that the Supreme Court itself had previously barred permissions for statues in public places that may create obstructions. The HC maintained that the State government cannot override such directions or use administrative orders to facilitate exceptions.
The High Court’s stance was rooted in ensuring smooth public life. It said that while leaders may be remembered, public spaces cannot be compromised for political memorials.
Ongoing debate over public memorials
This development comes amid a wider debate across the country on the use of taxpayer money and public land for statues and memorials of political leaders. Supporters argue that statues serve as cultural and political symbols, while critics see them as unnecessary expenditures that burden the public exchequer.
In Tamil Nadu, where political legacies and cult figures play a dominant role, such proposals are often contentious. Statues of leaders like C N Annadurai, M G Ramachandran, J Jayalalithaa, and Karunanidhi are already part of the state’s landscape, frequently sparking disputes over placement and funding.
What lies ahead
The Supreme Court’s dismissal means the Tamil Nadu government will now have to either approach the High Court again or drop the plan altogether. Legal experts say that unless exceptional grounds are presented, it will be difficult for the state to secure approval for such projects in public spaces.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to prioritising public convenience and constitutional rights over political commemorations. It also signals to other states that courts may take a stricter stance on the misuse of public funds for memorials.
As Tamil Nadu weighs its options, the episode has once again brought into focus the balance between honouring leaders and protecting public resources.