Madras High Court
P.D.Sundaresan vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 8 June, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.06.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.14627 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 P.D.Sundaresan President, Parent Teachers Association, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaveripattinam Post, Krishnagiri District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri. 4.The Headmaster, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District. 5.The District Collector, Krishnagiri. 6.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri. 7.The President, Thanthai Periyar Installation Committee, No.2/11,V.S.K.N. Nagar, Kaveripattinam-635 112 Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 issued by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.331, MAS Department and quash the same as void, unlawful and unjust. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramdass For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate General for RR 1 to 6 - - - - ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be the President of the Parent Teachers Association of the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaveripattinam, has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the G.O.Ms.No.331, School Education Department, dated 11.12.2009. By the impugned Government Order, the State Government had entertained the request of the Thanthai Periyar Installation Committee, i.e., the 7th respondent and had granted permission to install the statue of "Thanthai Periyar" (E.V.Ramasamy) on the south eastern corner of the school premises with an area of 10' X 10'. After erecting the same, they were directed to maintain the statue on their own.
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.
3.It is not clear as to how the petitioner can now come forward to challenge the same, especially after a period of two and half years from the date of the issuance of the Government Order. The petitioner in the typed set had enclosed all kinds of documents which are neither germane nor relevant to the case on hand.
4.When the case came up for hearing, the learned Advocate General Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, appearing for the Government took notice. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, the learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents.
5.The case of the petitioner was that he is running a milk dairy farm at Kaveripattinam. He is doing social work and rendering service to the society. He was elected as the President of the Parent Teachers Association of the 4th respondent school on 18.6.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that during the year 2011, the south eastern corner of the school compound wall was demolished for installing the statue by the 7th respondent. As soon as the said incident took place, a section of the area people started campaigning to shift the statue from the school premises. Number of political parties have also objected to the erection of the statue. Thanthai Periyar represents that section of people who profess atheism. If the statue was installed in the school premises, it will give room for developing atheism in the minds of students. Already a statue is in existence in Paiyur village, Salem Main Road, which is only 3 Kms from the present place of statue. The present attempt to erect the statue was also illegal.
6.Further, the State Government by a communication dated 2.3.2010 directed appropriate action to rebuild the compound wall and to inform the Government accordingly. The said letter was issued pursuant to a complaint made by a member of the BJP political party belonging to Kaveripattinam. The Headmaster of the School also informed the 7tn respondent committee that in view of the controversy, the installation of the statue can be kept in abeyance for some time. The local BJP political party also sent a letter dated 15.6.2011 stating that a statue should be erected for Dr.Headgewar, the founder of the RSS movement. In the meanwhile, the Headmaster of the school also informed the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Kaveripattinam on 22.07.2011 stating that the statue committee is going ahead with the construction of the base for installing the statue. They have declared not to stop their work, but have also filed a caveat in the local Munsif court. At this juncture, the petitioner sent a notice to the State Government on 24.4.2012 and filed the present writ petition.
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.
13.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri.
4.The Headmaster, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District.
5.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.
6.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri