'Nobody Is Prohibiting Practice Of Religion': Bombay High Court Says PoP Idol Immersion Case Is Limited To Environmental Issue

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 5) clarified that the litigation concerning immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols are confined to the environmental impact of immersing such idols in natural water bodies and do not seek to interfere with the religious practices of the Hindu community.

Emphasising that "nobody is prohibiting the practise of religion," division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata clarified that the issue before it was limited to whether PoP idols are harmful to the ecosystem, and not whether Ganesh Visarjan as a religious practice could be performed.

The clarification was made when advocate Dr Uday Warunjikar appearing for Akhil Ganpati Utsav Samiti made a submission that immersion of Ganesh idols in water bodies is an essential religious practice and the 'Dharmashastra' does not permit 'non-immersion' of Ganesh idols.

"Show us any judgment or scripture which says idol must be made of PoP and of a particular height only and that it must then be immersed in natural water bodies?" Justice Gadkari questioned. 

To this, Warunjikar responded saying that Dharmashastra only speaks about clay but not which forms of clay. "When it started it was ordinary clay and gradually we switched to shaadu maati and now PoP... So dharmashastra doesn't say PoP... But it says immersion of idols in water..." the counsel added. 

Further, Warunjikar cited an order of the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanual vs State of Kerala case, wherein three students had objected to singing the national anthem during school assembly citing their religious practices and the top court had then held that the High Court must not interfere in the religious practices. 

"Why are we going on national anthem? How is it related? Nobody is prohibiting you to practice your religion... You show us that PoP is an important raw material which must be used... We are simply not impressed with this citation and submission..." Justice Gadkari remarked orally. 

To which, Warunjikar replied, "Definitely, if some group of manufacturers come up with a suggestion (that PoP made giant idols can be sent to recycling centre by performing 'symbolic' immersion) that would be the point of view of that particular community and not the entire Hindu community... If it is contrary to the belief of the community it must not be permitted."

Justice Gadkari interjected, "But you are not the community or religion Mr counsel... You are just a group of persons celebrating the festival... Don't unnecessarily drag the issue... Please argue if PoP is good or bad... Just argue if it does affect that flora and fauna or enhances the quality of the water etc and concentrate on the main issue..."

When Warunjikar again cited another judgment of the Supreme Court on 'essential religious practice' Justice Gadkari made it clear, orally, that the court was not at all touching this issue in the instant petitions before it. 

"We are not interfering in any religious practice .. we are not saying don't use flowers, or agarbattis or don't perform your rituals or pujas or anything else... We are only on the issue whether an idol made of a particular material is good for the ecosystem or not... We are on a very minute point... No body is prohibiting you at all... Immersion of only PoP idols is sought to be restricted in these petitions, so be on this point," Justice Gadkari clarified. 

Weighing in, Justice Khata added, "We are not stopping immersion or any religious practice... We are only on whether any idol above 6 feet which are made of PoP can be allowed to be immersed in natural water bodies..."

The judges then asked Warunjikar if he could place any old Hindu scripture which mandated that an idol of Ganesh must be made of PoP and only such an idol made of PoP must be immersed. However, the counsel responded that when the scriptures were being written, PoP was not even discovered so it was obvious that the said material would have no mention in any of the scriptures. 

"So don't mix several issues..." Justice Gadkari made it clear to Warunjikar. 

Warunjikar then pointed out that from the point of essential religious practice, three stages are important for Ganesh Chaturthi which were - Awahan (Bringing the idol home), Pujan (Worshipping It) and then Visarjan (Immersing in water). 

"Here in this case, there is a direct attack on the third aspect, which is Visarjan," Warunjikar argued, while referring to the judgment in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir Case wherein an observation was made that while speaking about idols in Hindu religion, that idols must be submerged into water, which has been a religious practice by Hindus in India. 

"Even if it is an obiter it will be binding on this court... Also, the various judgments and paragraphs cited by the petitioners are too an obiter so my lordships will have to consider the principle of obiter dicta," the counsel submitted. 

Further while closing his arguments, post lunch break, Warunjikar confined his submissions on three main aspects: i. Mindset to change any festival would need some more time can't be done overnight. ii. More time would be required for changing the raw material. iii. Nothing has been brought on record neither any research material by the State or Central government and also the CPCB, to show PoP is toxic, hazardous or harmful.

Next to argue was advocate Prasanna Kutti, representing the Nandurbar Zilla Murtikar Kamgar Sanghatna. He tried to point out a 2025 CPCB report which held that PoP manufacturing units were not 'pollutants' or causing harm to the environment. However, the judges pointed out to him that the said report was only qua the units and not the PoP idols being immersed in natural water bodies. 

Kutti then made submissions on the lines that PoP is not toxic or harmful for the natural water bodies and in fact he while relying on some international journals, claimed that PoP was a 'water purifier' and was not a pollutant. He claimed that clay was more harmful for the environment than compared to PoP. 

The bench is likely to continue hearing submissions of some other lawyers on Thursday (August 6).

Case Title: Rohit Manohar Joshi vs State of Maharashtra (PIL/96/2024)