• Citizens 

These prohibitions issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) regarding idol immersion in India have triggered a national discourse that juxtaposes environmental concerns with traditional beliefs. Although some citizens find it difficult to change customs that date back decades, a rising movement actively supports more stringent enforcement and complete application of these laws.

The case of Surat Citizens Council Trust v. State of Gujarat (2018)  involved the contamination of the Tapi river by more than 60,000 idols. This raises a need for a middle ground, respecting religious and environmental sentiments. The Trust filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the Gujarat High Court, which sought a more sustainable solution in compliance with the CPCB norms (laid down in 2010), and resulted in the Gujarat HC instigating a complete ban on the immersion of idols in the rivers during festivals, but simultaneously creation of temporary artificial ponds with mud bunds for idol immersion.

In Rohit Joshi v. Thane Municipal Corporation, the applicant sought that the authorities abide by the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, as well as the CPCB’s Revised Guidelines for Idol Immersion, 2020. The respondent guaranteed adherence to these rules during the hearing. The court, then ordered the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) to make sure there are no infractions and to submit a report on the disposal procedure in a week. 

The CPCB rules have been further emphasized in the recent case of Umesh Prajapati and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), wherein the inculcation and usage of environmentally friendly idol constituents were encouraged. Appropriate waste management strategies during and after immersion was advised.. A more nuanced and necessary adherence to the CPCB regulations by setting aside specific areas for utilizing the soil used to create idols, keeping plastic debris out of waterways, and the longevity of viable solutions was highlighted.  

• Murtikars sanghatanas

The conundrum that now arises is the conflict between artistic expression and the fundamental right of freedom of livelihood versus the greater good of environmental conservation—the case of Daxin Gujarat Murtikar Sangathan v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2016) brought about this very conflict into the limelight, with artisans contending a breach of their right to life under Article 21 grants them the freedom to create idols and support themselves on the one hand, and the restraints imposed by the Immersion Guidelines in 2010 on the other. They further contended that there should be no restrictions on the style or height of these idols, nor on the materials that can be used, such as clay or POP. 

While emphasizing that fundamental rights are not absolute and must be weighed against environmental concerns, the court stated that the guidelines were based on expert guidance and intended to address any potential harm from idol immersion in water bodies. While appreciating the artisans’ concerns, the court eventually dismissed the petitions, prioritising the need for environmental standards.

The stricter approach mandated by the 2020 guidelines was met with increasing resistance from artisans, as seen in Shree Ganesh Murtikar Pratishthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2021). On behalf of Maharashtra’s idol makers, the applicants argued that PoP was less polluting than some thought and provided several arguments for its continued usage. Nevertheless, their application was denied by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The Tribunal maintained the CPCB’s competence to recommend reducing water pollution as an expert body. The precautionary principle took precedence, which calls for taking preventative measures to protect the environment even without clear scientific proof regarding the precise effects of PoP.

Vinodkumar Rameshchand Gupta and others in 2021 petitioned the Bombay High Court against the ban on selling Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols during festivals such as Ganesh Chaturthi and Durga Puja. They claimed to have suffered significant financial loss as they had already made many PoP idols. The court recognised the petitioners’ financial burden and granted the petitioners permission to sell the already manufactured PoP idols as PoP objects rather than idols intended for worship or immersion. The revised guidelines only ban the creation of PoP idols for worship, not other PoP objects. This difference seeks to alleviate the environmental harm brought about by the immersion of PoP idols in water bodies. Thus, the court upheld the prohibition on making PoP idols while permitting the sale of PoP objects subject to strict limitations on their intended use.

In the case of Prakash v. District Collector Tirunelveli & Others (2023), the court upheld the artisans’ right to engage in trade while acknowledging environmental concerns and upholding the prohibitions on PoP idols. The court decided that there could be no restrictions on selling idols built from non-polluting materials. This strategy allows artisans to modify their methods and continue their livelihoods while abiding by environmental standards.