Babubhai Jashbhai Patel and Another vs State of Gujarat and Another

Mahatma Gandhlji commands universal respect. A statue of that great personality is to be installed in Gandhinagar, the capital city named after that great personality with a view to respect and perpetuate his memory. Unfortunately, this has created some controversy.

The petitioner No. I am a Gandhian of repute and have been a former Chief Minister of this State. The petitioner No. 2, Gandhi Peace Foundation, as its name suggests, has abundant respect for Gandhiji and his way of life. They are aggrieved by a photograph, published in a newspaper, of the statue to be installed.

According to the petitioners, this statue depicts the picture of a man of totally downcast and depressed being and does not present the exact visual representation in the mind of public at large. It is submitted that if any caricature is sought to be passed off as the emblem of Gandhiji, it would be a matter of disgrace and shame and it would tantamount to dishonouring that gigantic personality who ''by his smiling face, by his brisk movements and by his intellectual heights, has made India proud of its rich heritage in various branches of human thinking. It is further submitted that if anyone tries to present a different picture, it would be an insult to the Indian sentiments and would degrade and denigrate that radiant personality.

It is also submitted that under false notions of international amity, the State Govt. has agreed to accept a statue of Ganddhiji prepared by a Russian sculptor and artist Dimitri Ryabechev as a gift of friendly nation. The petitioner has seen the newspaper representation of photographs of this statue published in Gujarat Samachar and Gandhinagar Samachar dated 24-9-1986 (annexure-A and B to the petition). According to the petitioners, these photographs are totally disheartening and they appear to be not the representation of Gandhiji but they are the distorted caricatures A what that great saint was. It is submitted that Gandhiji was always bristling with spirit, enthusiasm and vigor though he was physically not so stout and sturdy and his extraordinary brilliance was universally recognized, and these newspaper photographs (annexure-A and B) are showing the picture of Mahatma Gandhi as a down cast depressed, dull, lifeless and pulled down man displaying total degeneration of spirit, and no Indian who, had an occasion to see him physically and hear and peruse his literature would be able to withstand this poorest representation of the Father of the Nation and the State Government ought not to have, under false notions of international etiquette of respecting a foreign country or its artist agreed to accept such a degenerating gift.

The petitioner has also written a letter to the Chief Minister against the installation of this statue. It is submitted that this is an opinion expressed not only by the petitioners but also by thousands of people.

The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on caveat, has submitted that the statue has been installed in front of the main building of Vidhan Sabha. A color photograph is produced before this Court. At present, the statue has been covered pending its formal inauguration and it is submitted that the newspaper reproduction of the statue in black and white is clearly a poor reproduction.

The newspaper photograph (annexure-A) bears the following remarks in Gujarati:

( Editor: The vernacular matter printed hereunder has been omitted).

It states that Russian sculptor has given expression to the greatness of the soul of has agreed to accept a statue of Gandhiji Gandhiji and that sculptor had studied prepared by a Russian sculptor and artist Gandhiji for ten years before preparing this statue. Annexure-D is the newspaper cutting from Gandhinagar Samachar dated 5- 1- 1980. It states that according to the Russian sculptor. Mahatma Gandhi was a great thinker and this special posture of Mahatma Gandhiji is a glimpse of thinking of Gandhiji "Not to hate anybody but love everybody" so that peace may prevail in the world.

In annexure-E, a newspaper cutting from ''Gandhinagar Samachar'', an expression is given in the words of the petitioner No. I that the statue is Loving an impression of a totally down cast and depressed being'' and not of Mahatma Gandhiji. It is also remarked in that news cutting that Mahatmaji was known for resolution of controversies and now the statue of Mahatma Gandhi itself has caused controversies. ''There are numerous controversies mentioned, such as''Bajoth'' the place of sitting, frontage of the statue against the building of Vidhan Sabha. It is also commented that Gandhiji is watching the proceedings of Vidhan. Sabha. Another comment made is that Gandhiji seems to be worried about the condition of the State and'' the pation. At page 19 which is a newspaper cutting from ''Sambhav'' dated 6-10-86, a reference has been made to the reaction of the petitioner that this statue shows Gandhiji as a disheartened and disappointed & person and it is also commented that after undergoing lots of trials and tribulations in life Jind Satyagrah and especially after the death of Kasturba, Mahatma Gandhi might have felt loneliness.

All these reactions are made on. the basis of newspaper representations''; of ill black and white photographs of the statue these newspaper represent at ions are clearly poor representation and do not give true idea of the statue.

It appears that the decision to install this statue has not been taken suddenly or without giving proper and deep thought. First, it was decided during the informal discussion in a Cabinet Meeting that a befitting bronze statue of Mahatma Gandhiji at a suitable place at Gandhinagar be put up ''and. therefore, a Committee of five officers was constituted to decide the artist, location of the statue, its pose and approximate cost etc. and the Committee had a meeting with it sculptor of Ahmedabad having international repute. The Committee finally made certain recommendation.%. However, at this stage. It was. learnt that a Soviet sculptor was to gift it statue of Mahatma Gandhiji. Thereafter, (here was exchange of correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister. Therefore, it was decided to invite The Russian sculptor to visit Gandhinagar in order to select a suitable site for the statue at use and also to decide purpose of the stay use in consultation wit It the State Government. The other proposal regarding the Indian sculptor wits. therefore, to wait till the outcome of the visit of the Russian sculptor. Thereafter a Russian delegation visited Gandhinagar and a joint discussion was recorded on 25-12-1985 and it was decided that the site for the monument shall be in the front of Vidhan. Sabha and the general image of Mahatma Gandhi''s sculpture as suggested'', by the Russian sculptor was, approved in, general and the - advice of Chief Minister, the Soviet Side also discussion the posture of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi with Shri Ramial Parikh (a wellknown Gandhian) and Shri Parikh appreciated, in general . the posture and wide minor suggestions regarding facial expression which the Soviet side agreed to consider when the. finalize the design of the monument

In accordance therewith, the statue of a height of about 3 meters has been brought to Gandhinagar and has beep installed. However, it is yet to be inaugurated and unveiled.

Even though (he petitioner who is a Gandhian feels that (lie statue is not a true visual representation of, Mahatma Gandhiji''s great personality and it would lavation it) dishonouring that gigantic personality) be installing such a statue. it is not possible for the Court to uphold such a view and lo prevent its installation. First of all, it is a matter of, opinion and there are bound 10 the differences of opinion oil every issue. No one % could think of dishonouring the great persona in. In fact the very idea be '' hind installing the statue is to honor and to perpetuate the memory of the great soul. MahatmaGandhiji was great not because of his physique and even though physically he might not be looking stout and sturdy; but he was a giant by his thinking, his deeds, his life and his achievements. During his life span on different occasions and for different reasons, he was in different moods. One cannot ignore the realities which he and the nation had faced. In the days of partition, he was the saddest person. It cannot be said that this statue, because it is in a particular thinking mood, does not make a true representation of this great personality.

The artist has studied Gandhiji for ten years before preparing this statue out of respect for the great soul. The Gujarat Government decided to install that statue out of respect for the great soul and not with a view to degrade or denigrate that great personality and in fact this statue is not at all likely to haring the sentiments of his admirers all throughout the State, nation and the world. Against any statue, there can be an objection as it is a matter of opinion. If the Government after mature consideration has considered that'' this statue could be a befitting one for respecting the great soul of Mahatma Gandhiji, the Court has very little scope for substituting its judgment or opinion; even if the Court were to hold a different opinion, it cannot substitute its opinion especially when the opinion of the Government cannot be said to be perverse.

1 is reminded of a story. An artist prepared a statue, exhibited the same and with a view to invite comments, put a small notice inviting the viewers to put a black mark on that part of the statue which the viewer thought was in some manner defective. By the end of the day, the whole of the statue came to be covered with black marks and the artist was completely disheartened. However someone advised him to put another notice on the next day and asked the viewers to put a black mark on the part which they thought was most artistic and perfect. By the end of the day, again the statue came to be covered with the black marks all over. This example is only an illustration which may not be wholly apt in the present case, but nonetheless it illustrates that opinions do vary from person to person and from time to time and on such difference of opinion, the Court cannot''act or strike down one, opinion for the other. If the Government were of the same opinion as has been canvassed by the petitioner, no one could have successfully gone to the Court saying that such opinion is erroneous. Conversely, if the Government is of the contrary opinion, the Court cannot interfere and substitute another opinion. Thus, there is no legal case made out for any interference in this petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited an instance about a statue of Jawaharlal Nehru which is said to have been removed after Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reportedly commented that the statue did not resemble Nehru. From that press clipping, it would appear that the statue of Nehru was removed because of the reported opinion of the Prime Minister. It is open to the Government to form or accept an opinion and act on it and it is not for the Court to substitute the opinion and issue any direction one way or the other to install or not to install a particular statue.

In the same press clipping regarding Nehru''s statute, there is a remark of a grandson of Mahatma Gandhiji to the effect that the people who want to set up a fitting memorial for the Father of the Nation (both petitioners as well as respondents have no quarrel about putting up a fitting memorial to perpetuate the inspiring memory of the Father of the Nation) have obviously forgotten what the Mahatma said about memorials "Poor countries like ours cannot afford them. My work is my monument and I would wish to be remembered through my work."

In spite of such opinion and wish of Mahatmaji, the people do desire to put memorials and monuments of Mahatmaji out of abundant love and respect to him. Someone may object on the ground that it would be contrary to the wishes of Mahatmaji and would offend feelings, of some Gandhians. That is only one view and it cannot be imposed by a court direction on anyone or even on the Government. Similarly, in the present case, the Court cannot impose any direction for not installing the statue in question.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in an earlier petition regarding a statue of Dr. Ambedkar, the High Court had passed an order on 134 1984 directing the Municipal Commissioner to compare the statue with the official photographs available with the Corporation and if he certified that the statue substantially resembled the photographof Dr. Ambedkar, it would be open to the Corporation to unveil it as decided and if the Municipal Commissioner reported otherwise, the Corporation would not do so. Relying on that order in Special Civil Application No. 1994of 1984, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the present case also, the High Court should appoint a Commission to undertake the exercise. It is not possible to do so in view of the fact that such exercise has already been undergone by the Government with the aid of competent people in the subject and, therefore, by appointing a commission, no useful purpose will be served by calling the opinion which will be one more opinion on this issue. It would be hazardous to substitute one opinion for the other.

In view of the above discussion, this petition is summarily dismissed.

Petition dismissed.