Madras High Court
T.Thirupathi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 5 July, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.07.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.8127 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 T.Thirupathi, President, Thanthai Periyar Statue Installation Committee, No.2/11,V.S.K.N.Nagar, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District-635 112. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (E1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Joint Secretary to Government, School Education (E1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. 3.The Director of School Education, Chennai-600 006. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri. 5.The Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District. 6.The Headmaster, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District-635 112. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in letter No.5492/XI/2010-1, dated 02.03.2010 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to direct the 4th and 5th respondents to provide adequate police protection to the construction of statue at the South East corner compound of the 6th respondent school. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP (Edn.) - - - - ORDER
The petitioner is the President of Thanthai Periyar Statue Installation Committee at Kaveripattinam. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the second respondent Joint Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Chennai, dated 2.3.2010 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to 4th and 5th respondents, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri and the Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station to provide adequate police protection for the construction as well as installation of Periyar Statue on the south east corner compound of the 6th respondent school.
2.The writ petition when it came up for admission on 28.03.2012, the learned Government Advocate took notice. Private notice was also permitted.
3.The grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner committee sought permission for the installation of the statue of Periyar on the south eastern corner of the Government Boys Higher Secondary School near the compound wall in the vacant space to an extent of 10 sq.ft. They also asked permission from the Headmaster to have the approval of the Parents Teachers Association. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the State Government. The State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.331, School Education Department, dated 11.12.2009 and permitted the petitioner society to install the statue with certain conditions.
4.The Executive Committee of the Parents Teachers Association also passed a resolution. The opinion of the Director of School Education was also considered. After considering all relevant factors, permission was granted. It is at this stage, certain political groups, which are not favourable for the installation of the statue started sending representations to the Government and other authorities. One such representation was sent by the member of the BJP political party stating that the installation of the statue will result in bad example and that the construction should be stopped. Based on the said representation, the Joint Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, i.e., the second respondent informed the third respondent regarding the telegram received from one G.Krishnan at Kaveripattinam and requested the Director of School Education to send a report on the action taken. The Director in turn forwarded the telegram to the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri. In turn the Headmaster of the 6th respondent school had informed the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri that appropriate resolutions were passed by the Parents Teachers Association and proposals have been sent to the school Education Department and thereafter, on the basis of the Government Order, permission has been granted to erect the statue in the south eastern corner. But for the reasons best known, on the basis of the letter sent by the Director of School Education, the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri had issued proceedings dated 15.7.2010 stating that since the compound wall belonged to the school has been said to be demolished, until further orders the work should be stopped and a detailed report for demolition of the compound wall was sought for from the Headmaster. It was thereafter, the Headmaster of the school wrote to the petitioner and informed him about the decision taken by the Director. But the petitioner in turn informed the Headmaster that they have obtained necessary permission from the authorities and his intention to stall the installation of the statue will not be binding on the committee. In the meanwhile, the petitioner committee also made a proposal for installation of the statue and have also made a bronze statue of Thanthai Periyar with an estimated cost of Rs.5,20,000/- and that the estimate for erecting the base for the statue was also made. A public function was also organized for inaugurating the statue on 16.4.2012 and invitations have been printed. Since certain disgruntle elements were creating problem, complaints were also given to the Inspector of Police on 22.7.2011 and 25.7.2011. Thereafter, the writ petition came to be filed.
5.During the pendency of the writ petition, a person by name P.D.Sundaresan claiming to be the President of the Parent Teachers Association filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.14627 of 2012 seeking to challenge the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.331, School Education Department, dated 11.12.2009 on various grounds. That writ petition came to be dismissed by this court by a final order dated 08.06.2012. In that writ petition, in paragraphs 2, 7 to 12 it was observed as follows :
"2.Before the issuance of the government order, the State Government had obtained the opinion of the Director of School Education. The Director of School Education in turn informed the Government that the Committee had informed the department the area needed near the south eastern corner of the school is only a small extent which cannot be used for any playing activity by the children. The installation of the statue will not hamper the work of the school. As and when the statue was erected, an appropriate compound wall will be constructed. The statue will be made with bronze metal at the expenses of the committee. The future maintenance will be done by the committee. Even in future, for the purpose of garlanding the statue, an entry will be made from the side of the highways and an appropriate iron gate will also be put up for entering the area from outside. The matter was also discussed in the Parent Teachers Association. The Executive Committee of the Parent Teachers Association by its resolution dated 4.9.2008 did not have any objection for the statue to be installed in an area 10' x 10'. On the basis of these facts, the Director of School Education had recommended the State Government for the issuance of an appropriate permission for erecting the statue on the south eastern corner of the school building. Accepting this recommendation, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.331, School Education Department, dated 11.12.2009 in granting permission, which is impugned in the writ petition after 2-1/2 years.
7.It is not clear as to how such a writ petition is maintainable. The petitioner has also not explained his locus standi to file the present writ petition. The petitioner had questioned the bonafide of the installation of the statue for Thathai Periyar in the south eastern corner of the school premises within an area of 10' x 10', which can no way interfere with the functioning of the school. The portrayal by the petitioner in his affidavit regarding Periyar's teaching only betrays his ignorance about the role played by the Periyar in the transformation of the Tamil society in many respects. He cannot be merely labelled as the propagandist for atheism. His views on caste oppression, social equality, women liberation surpasses the teachings of many contemporary leaders of India. Men like Iyothee Thass and Periyar, like Phule and Ambedkar, were men of remarkable insight, keen sympathy and endowed with a great and original imagination. They were profoundly sensitive to the nature of ignorance, suffering and injustice in their societies and brought to their understanding a robust critical vision which helped them evolve universal categories of understanding, analysis and action. Through a creative deployment of these categories they were able to identify the extent of hurt, oppression and injustice in caste society as well as challenge its existence. Thus they shook the Hindu social order to its very roots and, to use Periyar's favourite figure of speech, stood it on its head.
8.A division bench of this court presided by A.P.Shah, C.J. (as he then was) complimented the role played by Periyar vide its judgment in T.Kannan Vs. Liberty Creations Ltd., rep by its Producer-cum-Director, Gnanarajasekaran, Chennai and others reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 1015. In paragraph 7, it was observed as follows :
"7........Throughout his life, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy worked for the removal of untouchability, eradication of caste system, upholding of the rights of women as a crusader of social justice and spreading of rationalism, self-respect and social revolution. Being a rationalist he exorted people to imbibe scientific temper and to give up blind beliefs and superstition practices that were wasteful and harmful. In 1926, he founded the Self Respect Movement. He believed that religion continues to be vicious system for perpetuating a priestly class or in rationalistic parlance, a Brahminical hegemony and to keep the ignorant masses in fear of God. Hence, he became a crusader against God and religiosity. In a book published on the philosophy of Periyar titled "Towards a Non Brahmin Millennium" by V. Geetha and S.V. Rajadurai, in the chapter, 'Self-Respecters' Critique of Religion', the philosophy of Periyar is explained as follows : (p.307) "If one were to place this period of his life in the context of his latter-day ctiriques of Hinduism, which were, often, satiric and provocative, it is possible to see in such matters as his relationship to his two brahmin mendicant companions, the play of a carnivalesque energy; one that eternally delights in invoking subversion and irreverence alongside and within structures and modes of authority and power. It was this ludic element in Periyar's criticisms of religion which sustained and rendered attractive his debunking of religion and Gods and his scornful, but informed, rejections of scripture. Guided by Periyar and inspired by his transparent iconoclasm, many a Self-Respecter came to advance a theory and practice of atheism and irreverence, which reflected not only great anger and indignation, but also a saturnalian urge to debunk, parody and stand the world on its head.
'The Self-Respecters' and Periyar's views on religion comprised at least five major aspects. There was the critique of the Brahmin Priest and his ideology of privilege, rule and command, in short, a critique of brahmins and Brahminism. Then, there was the critique of scripture; of Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas, at once rationalist and subversive. Thirdly, there was the criticism of religion as world-view, an ethos that determined the believer's views on sacred, profane and secular matters. Fourthly, we have an exposition and critique of religious doctrine, of the principles that sustain belief and direct action and, lastly, there was the critique of religious practices, of festivals and rituals and happenings."
9.The question of erecting a statue in a public place came to be considered by a division bench of this court in T.Amirthalingam Vs. State, rep by its Secretary, Department of Home, Chennai and others reported in (2010) 2 MLJ 1022. In that case, when the statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was erected in a public place without permission, even then the court held that considering the stature of Dr.Ambedkar, it was unnecessary to disturb the location of the statue. This court directed the statue to be relocated in the same place. While rendering the judgment, the division bench dealt with relevant G.Os and in paragraphs 35 and 36, it was observed as follows :
"35.The first direction is that government's sanction should be obtained before installation of the statues, memorials, memorial arches and memorial pillars. This is with respect to the sanction to be obtained from the government. In this behalf, it would be desirable that the person, society or body of institutions desirous of erecting any such statue should make an application .............. In no case the erection of the statue should be initiated or carried out without the prior sanction of the government in this behalf.
36.The second direction given in the above referred to Government Order is that such statues, memorials, memorial arches and memorial pillars that are already erected should be protected and the persons who erected them should take the responsibility for its security and maintenance................. This G.O. dated 20.11.1998 refers to an earlier G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 23.08.1990 which laid down the necessity to have the statues made in bronze. In our view, the government should insist on that condition while granting the permission. As seen in the present matter the statue got damaged with the pole falling thereon. A bronze statue will avoid any such development."
10.These conditions are squarely satisfied in the impugned Government Order. Admittedly, the land belongs to the Government and prior permission has been granted. Even the condition for erecting a Bronze statue was also accepted by the 7th respondent.
11.The fear expressed by the petitioner is totally unfounded. The installation of the Periyar statue in the school premises will not automatically covert the children into an atheist outlook. On the other hand, it is necessary that the school children must know the life and mission of Periyar. Ultimately the understanding of the philosophy of such a personality will only help them from having scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform as enshrined under Article 51-A(h) of the Constitution.
12.If it is seen in the light of the above discussions, it is clearly seen that the petitioner is motivated in filing the present writ petition at the instance of a political party which do not want to come on record, but at the same time, pressurize the bodies like the petitioner to put forth grounds which are not only legally untenable, but can never be accepted by the court. By issuing the Government Order, the State Government has not done any irregularity or illegality. On the other hand, it has rendered a great service to a man who had fought throughout his life against the social oppression."
6.Therefore, this court having upheld the validity of the Government Order and the Government having given permission in accordance with the rules for erecting the statue, there cannot be any further impediment for going ahead with the installation of the statue and the inaugural function.
7.But, however on notice from this court, the learned Advocate General who took notice wanted to get instructions from the Government with reference to the stand of the Government in reference to the Government Order which granted permission for erecting the statue and he also produced a copy of the letter sent by the Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, dated 26.6.2012 and it reads as follows :
"I am directed to state that the G.O.Ms.No.331, School Education (E1) Department, dated 11.12.2009 issued by Government is still in force and the letter issued by the Chief Educational Officer of Krishnagiri is nothing but a wrong interpretation of the Government letter No.5492/XI/2010-1, dated 02.03.2010. This may be appraised before the Hon'ble Court, Chennai, when the case is taken up for hearing."
8.In the light of the stand taken by the learned Advocate General, there cannot be any impediment for erecting the statue. It is needless to state that the subordinate officers of the Government cannot put spokes into the order issued by the State Government and they are bound to obey the order of the Government. Already this court in the earlier writ petition emphasized the importance of such statue being erected. Therefore, the writ petition will stand allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. The 4th and 5th respondents are directed to give an appropriate police protection to the petitioner committee for installation of the statue and also for the subsequent opening of the statue on the date intimated by them. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (E1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Joint Secretary to Government, School Education (E1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.The Director of School Education, Chennai-600 006.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District.
6.The Headmaster, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District PIN 635 112