The Bombay High Court on Friday (July 24, 2026) asked the Maharashtra government to evaluate a proposal for the symbolic immersion of large Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols of Lord Ganesha. A division Bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata said the State must consider suggestions that only the feet of idols over six feet in height touch the water ceremonially, after which the idols would be transported to a designated collection centre or recycling facilities.

The court was hearing a petition challenging the State government's August 2025 policy. The policy permits the immersion of PoP idols above six feet in natural waterbodies, while mandating that smaller idols be immersed in artificial ponds. The petitioners, a group of idol makers, argued that the policy does not adequately address the environmental damage caused by the immersion of large PoP idols.

Senior advocate Sanjeev Gorwadkar, representing the Shri Ganesh Murtikar Utkarsha Sastha, Thane, presented an alternative proposal to the court. The suggestion included the installation of a smaller Ganesha idol, not exceeding six feet, alongside the large idol. The smaller idol could then be immersed in an artificial pond.

The judges asked Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe to consider the implementation of this policy. The Bench said the State would need to convince the stakeholders to adopt the suggested measures.

Mr. Sathe, however, requested the court to grant the State two to three more years to implement changes gradually. He argued that a sudden shift from the current practice could lead to difficulties. He pointed out that PoP has been used for over a century, though not at the current scale, and noted that a complete switch to clay idols would require approximately 4,500 metric tonnes of natural clay. He also raised concerns that an immediate ban could create a law and order situation.

Justice Gadkari responded to this argument, stating, "But maintaining law and order is the duty of the State... how can you say like this?"

The Advocate General also noted the commercial interests of the petitioners who are clay idol makers. Justice Gadkari questioned this stand, asking if the State was suggesting that the immersion of PoP does not damage the environment, or if it was willing to allow some damage to continue. He emphasised the State's duty to consider the larger picture and future generations.

Mr. Sathe presented data showing that the number of PoP idols above six feet decreased from 7,863 in 2024 to 4,194 in 2025. He submitted that people were gradually adopting more eco-friendly options, and the State should be allowed to continue with its phase-wise approach.

Justice Khata remarked that the number of idols is likely to increase. He said, "It is good that people believe in God and worship, but if the activity is causing damage to the natural waterbodies isn't it the duty of the State to prevent it as far as possible and come up with a mechanism to avoid damage?" He questioned whether people should be told to respect Mother Nature.

Mr. Sathe reiterated the State's position that the August 2025 policy should be permitted to continue. He argued for a phase-wise implementation, comparing the issue to the gradual approach required to address air pollution from vehicles.

In a related matter, the court pulled up the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Advocate Abhinandan Vagyani, representing the CPCB, stated that the board had issued guidelines as per the court's orders. He argued that the CPCB does not have statutory powers, and therefore, its guidelines were only advisory in nature.

When the Bench asked for an order proving the Central Government had authorised the CPCB to issue these guidelines, the advocate could not provide one and requested additional time. The judges remarked that the CPCB's stance was undermining the foundation of its own guidelines, which have been followed by other States and courts, including the Madras and Telangana High Courts and the National Green Tribunal.

The Bench suggested Mr. Vagyani reconsider the CPCB's position and argue again on Tuesday (July 28, 2026). The case is scheduled for further hearing on that date.

Published - July 27, 2026 01:13 pm IST