MADRAS HIGH COURT BACKS DENIAL OF PERMISSION FOR FREEDOM FIGHTER’S STATUE, CITING RISK OF CASTE CONSOLIDATION AND NEED FOR CASTELESS SOCIETY:

The Madras High Court has upheld the decision of authorities to refuse permission for erecting a statue of the renowned freedom fighter Veerapandiya Kattabomman on private land. The court expressed deep concern over the growing tendency to view national heroes primarily through the lens of caste rather than their heroic contributions to the country’s independence.

In its ruling, the court observed that people appear to be forgetting the real and tangible sacrifices made by freedom fighters who battled with immense valour to liberate the nation. Instead, they are focusing excessively on the concept of caste, which the court described as something that has no physical shape, colour, odour, or independent existence beyond what exists in the minds of individuals. The Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted with regret that such narrow perspectives are compelling authorities to deny permissions for statues and memorials in order to prevent the misuse of historical figures for caste-based mobilisation.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by S. Kumarasamy, who sought to quash an order issued by the authorities rejecting his request. He had also prayed for directions to grant permission to install a bronze statue of Veerapandiya Kattabomman on his own land in Udaikulam village in Ramanathapuram district. The authorities had turned down the application on the specific ground that the petitioner and members of his community were associating the freedom fighter with caste identity and seeking to erect the statue primarily on that basis.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted that Veerapandiya Kattabomman remains a revered hero for everyone in the region, irrespective of caste. However, the court emphasised that the constitutional vision of building a casteless and egalitarian society must remain paramount. When the impugned order was passed with this constitutional mandate in mind, judicial interference was not warranted, the judge held.

The bench further pointed out that the government has already constructed a memorial for the freedom fighter at Panchalankurichi in Thoothukudi district. Nothing prevents the petitioner or any other interested persons from visiting that established site to pay their respects and honour the memory of the great leader. The court observed that this existing memorial adequately serves the purpose of commemoration.

The authorities, in their rejection order, had also taken note of a troubling pattern. Memorials and statues of several other freedom fighters, originally intended to celebrate their role in the independence struggle, were increasingly being used as instruments for caste consolidation. This trend had reportedly led to the need for significant police protection every year during related events, raising concerns about public order and social harmony.

The court’s reasoning underscored that while Kattabomman’s bravery and contributions deserve recognition, allowing statues to be installed in a manner that promotes caste-based narratives would run counter to the foundational principles of the Constitution. The judgment reflects a firm judicial stance against attempts to reinterpret or appropriate the legacy of freedom fighters along divisive lines.

By refusing to interfere with the administrative decision, the Madras High Court has reinforced the importance of preserving the secular and unified spirit with which the nation’s freedom struggle should be remembered. The ruling serves as a reminder that public commemorations should unite citizens rather than deepen social divisions.