On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2009 against the construction of statues of former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, her mentor Kanshi Ram, and the elephant symbol of her party, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). The statues were erected in public parks in Lucknow and Noida using taxpayer money during Mayawati's tenure from 2007 to 2012.

Background of the Case

The PIL was initiated by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar, who alleged that the construction of these statues amounted to a misuse of public funds, claiming that over a thousand crores were spent from the state exchequer. They sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged financial irregularities, the removal of the statues, and a freeze on the BSP's election symbol, arguing that the expenditure violated constitutional principles and the government's fiduciary responsibility to the public.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioners' Claims:
  • The petitioners argued that the statues were a means for Mayawati to glorify herself and her party, thereby violating the principles of free and fair elections.
  • They highlighted that the public display of the statues, especially the elephant symbol, could influence voters and create an uneven playing field during elections.
  • The petitioners also claimed that the construction of parks and memorials was an arbitrary move to promote the Chief Minister's image.
• State's Defense:
  • Mayawati defended the construction, stating that it represented the will of the people and was sanctioned by the state legislature.
  • The state government argued that the elephants are part of Indian architectural designs and are commonly found in various monuments, thus their presence in the parks was not solely linked to the BSP.
  • The state maintained that the funds for the statues were allocated through proper legislative processes and were intended to honor social reformers and leaders.
    

Supreme Court's Observations

The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, noted that the petition had become "infructuous" due to the passage of time and the implementation of ECI guidelines. The Court emphasized that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had issued directives in 2016 prohibiting political parties from using public funds or resources for promoting their symbols or leaders.

During the hearing, the Court remarked,

"Destruction of these structures would require additional public money. You want them to be razed, but that would not serve the public interest."

This statement underscored the Court's concern about the prudent use of taxpayer money.

Election Commission's Role

The ECI had previously issued a directive in 2016 stating that no political party should use public funds for activities that could be seen as promoting their election symbols. This directive was in line with a Delhi High Court order that sought to ensure a level playing field for all political parties during elections. The ECI had also taken steps in 2012 to cover the statues of Mayawati and the BSP's elephant symbol to prevent any undue advantage during elections.

Conclusion of the Case

The Supreme Court's decision effectively ends a long-standing controversy surrounding the statues and their implications for political fairness in elections. The Court's ruling reinforces the importance of using public funds judiciously and maintaining a level playing field in the political arena. The Court directed that all political parties must comply with the ECI's instructions, ensuring that public resources are not misused for political gain.

Remarks:

"It is necessary to observe that the instructions issued by ECI on 07.10.2016 shall be complied with not only by respondent No.2 but all political parties in the country," the Court observed, highlighting the need for accountability in the use of public funds.