Matter Of Policy Must Be Left To Government; Courts Should Not Interfere Unless Decision Of Executive Infringes A Fundamental Right: Bombay High Court
he Bombay High Court considered PIL challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Government of allotting the land together with the Mayor's Bungalow for setting up the Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial in Mumbai.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Sandeep V. Marne, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court observed that the decision of the State Government regarding setting up of the Memorial is something which would fall outside the scope of judicial review of the Court and that the matters of policy must be left to the Government.
Three PILs were heard together challenging the decision of the State Government in setting up the Memorial at the site of the Mayor's Bungalow and the decision to construct residence for the Mayor on the adjoining plot of land.
The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “So far as the choice made by the State Government, with the approval of the landowner (MCGM), to set up the Memorial at Mayor’s Bungalow is concerned, the same would undoubtedly fall in the realm of policy, in which this Court would be loathe to interfere. Once the Petitioners do not dispute that a memorial to honour late Balasaheb Thackeray deserves to be set up, the choice of site made by the State Government and MCGM for setting up of the Memorial is something which would fall outside the scope of judicial review by this Court… When it comes to setting up memorials for leaders and persons revered for their contribution, it is also well settled that such act constitutes a public purpose and decision of the executive to set up a memorial to commemorate such persons, is a matter of policy of the State.”
Case Brief
The PIL, apart from challenging the decision to construct Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial in Mayor’s Bunglow complained that the public amenity of Gymkhana (Municipal House) is being compromised for residence of Mayor, which is nothing but a direct consequence of handing over the Mayor’s Bungalow for erecting the Memorial.
It was contended by the Petitioners that they are not per-se against setting up of a memorial to commemorate late Balasaheb Thackarey. They do not dispute the need for setting up a memorial in Mumbai to acknowledge his contribution and to honour him. They however dispute selection of the site at which the Memorial is proposed to be set up.
Further, the composition of the Trust ( Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Samiti) for the maintenance of the memorial was also questioned. It was also contended that the valuable piece of land was being offered to the Trust virtually free of cost for setting up the Memorial.
While the State contended that the establishment of the Memorial at Mayor’s bungalow is in the realm of policy decision in which the Court may not interfere. Additionally, it was submitted that that the decision to set up the Memorial has been taken in interest of a larger section of the society considering the contribution of late Balasaheb Thackeray during his lifetime. That no exception is made for allotting land for establishment of the Memorial as several such memorials have been established at various sites by allotting land by the State Government. That allotment of land for establishment of the Memorial for public purpose at concessional rate is a part of policy decision of the State Government and that no departure is made in the present case.
Court’s Analysis
With regard to the decision of the State Government to set up the Memorial at Mayor’s Bungalow is concerned, the Court observed that the same would undoubtedly fall in the realm of policy, in which the Court would not interfere. Further, it was observed that when it comes to setting up memorials for leaders and persons revered for their contribution, it is also well settled that such act constitutes a public purpose and decision of the executive to set up a memorial to commemorate such persons, is a matter of policy of the State.
Further, the High Court observed “Only three out of the 11 members apparently are members of the Shiv Sena political party and two out of them are actually family members of Late Balasaheb Thackeray. Since the Trust is created for setting up the Memorial and looking after it and since the memorial is to honour late Balasaheb Thackeray, we do not find any arbitrariness in the decision of the State Government to choose three members of Shiv Sena political party and two members of family of late Balasaheb Thackeray to be the part of Board of Governors/Trustees. After all, late Balasaheb Thackeray founded Shiv Sena political party and it can hardly be contended that the decision of the State Government in taking on board three members of that party, two out of whom are in fact family members of late Balasaheb Thackeray, would amount to arbitrariness.”
The contention regarding the value of land was also rejected by the Court. The Court opined the Petitioners themselves do not question the need for setting up of the Memorial to honour late Balasaheb Thackeray. They also do not question the fact that such a Memorial needs to be set up in Mumbai City where late Balasaheb Thackeray not only resided but had substantial influence. Any piece of land in the city of Mumbai is bound to be valuable and therefore it is not for this Court to decide which land needs to be chosen for setting up of the Memorial.
The Court did not find any valid ground of challenge to the decision of the State Government in establishing the Memorial.
Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigations were dismissed.
Cause Title: Jan Mukti Morcha V. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-OS:9754-DB)Jan Mukti Morcha V. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-OS:9754-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Mr. Sunip Sen, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rujuta Patil and Mr. Yohaan Shah, Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, for Petitioner in PIL/40/2019.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for Petitioner in PIL(L)/81/2017.
Mr. Santosh Daundkar, Petitioner-in-person in PIL/9/2019, present.
Respondents: Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joel Carlos i/b Mr. Yogesh Patil & Mr. Tushar Hathiramani, for Respondent No. 3 in PIL(L)/51/2017, PIL/40/2019, PIL(L)/81/2017 & for Respondent No. 7 in PIL/9/2019.
Smt. P.H. Kantharia, Govt. Pleader with Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for State-Respondent No. 1 in PIL(L)/51/2017, PIL/9/2019.
Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for State, Respondent No. 1 in PIL(L)/81/2017. Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP for State, Respondent No. 1 in PIL/40/2019.
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Ms. Chaitalee Deochake i/b Ms. Komal R. Punjabi, for MCGM, Respondent No. 2 in PIL/40/2019 & PIL(L)/81/2017 and for Respondent No. 1 & 5 in PIL(L)/51/2017.
Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for MCZMA, Respondent No. 4 in PIL/9/2019.
Click here to read/download Judgment.
