Madras High Court Division Bench Stays Order Permitting Sale of Plaster of Paris Ganesh Idols
In a recent development, the Madras High Court’s division bench has put a halt to a single judge’s order that permitted the sale of Ganesh idols made from Plaster of Paris (PoP). This decision came after Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench had previously stated that while the sale of Vinayaka idols made of plaster of Paris couldn’t be restricted, their immersion in water bodies could be.
Justice Swaminathan had permitted artisans to vend Ganesha idols made of Plaster of Paris, provided they maintained a register with details of all buyers, which could be later inspected by the authorities. However, this decision was soon overruled by a division bench comprising Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy.
The bench stated,
“There shall be an order of interim stay of operation of the order, made in W.P.(MD)No.22892 of 2023, dated 16.09.2023. The appellants may take appropriate action against anyone to prevent manufacturing, selling, or immersion of idols made of plaster of paris or plastics etc. in adherence to the revised guidelines.”
The court’s decision leaned heavily on the orders of the National Green Tribunal and the Pollution Control Board’s guidelines. The bench emphasized that traditionally, idols were crafted using clay, and the prohibition was solely concerning the use of Plaster of Paris.
While some argued that this prohibition could lead to financial hardships for artisans, especially with the festival just a day away, the court dismissed this argument. The single judge had previously ruled that artisans had the right to sell their creations, a right protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The judge had also noted that if the idols were eco-friendly, their manufacture and sale couldn’t be stopped.
However, the state countered this by pointing out that the CPCB guidelines explicitly prohibited the use of hazardous materials for idol creation. They argued that using Plaster of Paris posed potential health risks, infringing upon the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The case, titled “District Collector, Tirunelveli v Prakash,” continues to be a focal point of discussion as the festival approaches.