Karnataka HC: Erecting Statue Of BR Ambedkar Illegally On Public Property Is Disrespectful

Background of the Case

• In 2019, without permission, the youth association erected a statue of Dr. Ambedkar on a government land adjacent to a bus stop after which, a group of villagers voiced their displeasure and a complaint was filed.
• On March 5, 2020, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution. The resolution discussed the statue and decided to send a proposal to respondent 9 (Panchayath Development Officer) regarding its relocation.
• The Panchayat Development Officer ordered the removal of the statue by its order dated February 29, 2020.
• The order was challenged in court, and a stay on the order was requested.
• The court then ordered the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an officer, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner to investigate the legality and validity of the statue erected in Dr. B R Ambedkar's honour.
• The report then suggested that if any private landowner donates their land, the statute can be shifted there, but no one came forward.

The Association's request

• On June 9, 2021, respondent 10 filed an affidavit signed by the Association's President.
• They apologised for their illegal act and requested that the State Government to grant land for the statue of Dr. B R Ambedkar.
• Because the State Government did not demonstrate willingness, the Association was given time to state whether they were willing to provide the undertaking to relocate the statue under an order dated July 21.
• Finally, the affidavit was filed on August 9, 2021, promising to move the statue to a new location within four months.

Karnataka High Court

• On August 13, 2021, the Karnataka High Court accepted the youth association's promise to move Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's statue erected illegally on public land in Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District to a new location within four months.
• The Division Bench constituted of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N S Sanjay Gowda.
• The bench noted that "Respondent 10 has shown disrespect to the great human being by committing illegality in his name. Moreover, respondent 10 has erected a statue of the great human being on public property."
• The court referred to the affidavits and documents and observed, "The officers of the State Government and Peace Committee with active cooperation of respondent 10, ensured that peace is maintained in the village. At least to this extent, it can be said that respondent 10 ensured that all concerned respected values propagated by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar were upheld."
• The court dismissed the petition. However, the matter will be heard on December 17 to ensure that reporting requirements are met.

What do you think about this case?