RAVI KANT AND ANR. v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS, W.P.(C) No. 266/2009:

DATE: 15/01/2025

BENCH: Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

FACTS:

This petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been brought by two petitioners, both advocates by profession, in the public interest. They have challenged the policy adopted by the previous government of Uttar Pradesh, led by the then Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati (respondent no. 2), to construct numerous statues of herself and large statues of elephants, the election symbol of her political party. Additionally, they have opposed the construction of grand parks intended to glorify the Chief Minister and her party. The petitioners contend that crores of rupees from the state exchequer were spent on these projects, which served no public purpose and were intended solely to benefit and promote a particular individual and her political organization, amounting to a misuse of public funds.

The petitioners alleged hat the Uttar Pradesh government, under then Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati, misused public funds and resources to construct statues and parks purportedly honoring Dalit leaders and fulfilling the vision of BSP founder Kanshi Ram. However, they contend this was a pretext for glorifying the Chief Minister and her political party. The extensive use of the BSP's election symbol, the elephant, including 90 statues costing Rupees 52.2 crores, was highlighted as a violation of free and fair election principles due to its influence on voters. The petitioners also raised concerns about large-scale public expenditure on memorials, stupas, and parks, including a project near the Yamuna River in Delhi, arguing these actions represented a misuse of public funds and a breach of the government's constitutional duty to act as trustees of community resources. They assert such actions violated the right to equality, created a privileged class, and, if unchecked, could set a harmful precedent, undermining the democratic and welfare principles of the Constitution.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), through its order dated 11.10.2010, denied the relief sought by the petitioners, stating it could not determine the extent of the impact of the statues on voters or justify withdrawing the BSP's election symbol, the "elephant." The ECI emphasized that any such withdrawal could confuse millions of voters who associate the symbol with the party. However, the ECI assured that during elections, appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the statues of Ms. Mayawati and the BSP's symbol do not disrupt the level playing field or give the BSP an undue advantage over other parties.

ISSUES:

The chief issue involved in the case is whether the publically obtained funds can be used to create symbols statutes which can be used to propagate political agendas.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The SC disposed of the following the Election Commission of India’s compliance with the order passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case W.P.(C) No.8363/2010, directing the ECI to consider issuing appropriate direction/guideline within the meaning of Clause 16A(b) of the Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, preventing a 8 recognized political party in power from using public places and public funds for propagating its reserve symbol and/or its leaders, so as to come in the way of conducting of free, fair and peaceful election and to safeguard the interest of the general public and the electorate in future.

The Court reasoned the judgement with, the ECI's order dated 11.10.2010 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8363/2010. Meanwhile, in Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 1, the Supreme Court addressed a public interest litigation seeking to prevent the misuse of public funds on government advertisements aimed at promoting individual officials or political parties. The Court formed a committee to propose guidelines for regulating such actions and, through its judgment, approved guidelines emphasizing that government advertisements must not serve to advance the political interests of any party. The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated 07.07.2016, disposed of W.P.(C) No. 8363/2010, which challenged the ECI's order dated 11.10.2010. The court requested the ECI to consider issuing guidelines under Clause 16A(b) of the Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, to prevent ruling political parties from using public funds or spaces to propagate their election symbols or leaders, ensuring free and fair elections. The court also asked the ECI to assess whether the BSP's actions violated such guidelines and, if so, to provide the BSP an opportunity to rectify the violations or face proceedings under Clause 16A.

In compliance, the ECI issued instructions on 07.10.2016, prohibiting political parties from using public funds, spaces, or government machinery for activities promoting their party or election symbols. On 05.01.2017, the ECI concluded that since the statues were constructed during 2009-10, the 2016 guidelines could not be applied retrospectively against the BSP. However, it warned that future violations of these guidelines could result in action against the offending party.

Considering the facts, circumstances, and subsequent developments discussed above, and after thoroughly hearing the arguments presented by learned counsel and senior counsel representing the respective parties, the Court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to proceed with adjudicating or granting any of the prayers sought in this matter. The case has undergone significant legal examination at various levels, and key issues, including the use of public funds for political promotion and the construction of statues, have already been addressed through earlier judicial orders and the Election Commission's guidelines. As such, no further intervention is deemed warranted at this stage and disposed of this case.

ANALYSIS:

This case sits at the intersection of constitutional accountability, electoral fairness, and the limits of judicial intervention in public interest litigation. The petitioners raised a serious concern: whether the use of public funds to construct statues and parks, arguably serving political symbolism rather than clear public utility and violates the State’s role as a trustee of public resources. Their argument linked such expenditure to broader constitutional principles, including equality and the integrity of free and fair elections. However, the institutional response, particularly from the Election Commission of India (ECI), reflects a cautious and pragmatic approach. The ECI acknowledged the potential for undue electoral advantage but refrained from drastic retrospective action, citing both practical concerns (like voter confusion) and the absence of clear regulatory guidelines at the time the acts were committed. This highlights a recurring challenge in constitutional governance: balancing normative concerns about misuse of power with procedural fairness and legal certainty.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dispose of the matter without granting substantive relief underscores judicial restraint and deference to evolving regulatory mechanisms. By the time the case reached final consideration, significant developments had already occurred and most notably the formulation of guidelines in analogous contexts (such as government advertisements) and the ECI’s issuance of prospective instructions in 2016. The Court appears to have taken the view that the core issues had been sufficiently addressed through these institutional and regulatory responses, rendering further adjudication unnecessary. While this approach avoids overreach, it also leaves unresolved the deeper normative question about accountability for past misuse of public funds. The judgment thus reflects a preference for prospective correction over retrospective sanction, reinforcing the idea that structural reforms and clear guidelines are more effective tools for preserving democratic integrity than ex post facto judicial intervention.