Bombay High Court: In the present case, a PIL was filed, wherein the petitioners sought implementation of the Revised Guidelines dated 12-5-2020 issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (‘CPCB’). The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J., and Sandeep V. Marne, J., permitted the members of the petitioner’s associations and any other artisans to make idols of PoP but directed that such idols should not be immersed without leave of this Court.
The present PIL was clubbed with five other writ petitions, Writ Petition (St) No. 12887 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 5214 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 5436 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 665 of 2025 and Writ Petition (St) No. 16162 of 2025, wherein the petitioners challenged the validity of Clause 2.0 of the Revised Guidelines.
The petitioners’ grievance in PIL was that despite the Revised Guidelines, the idol industry was still operating, and Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols were being made and immersed in violation of CPCB’s Guidelines. Whereas the grievance in writ petitions was that the Revised Guidelines were framed without considering the benefits of PoP in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same were not legally enforceable. The challenge to Clause 2.0 of the Revised Guidelines was made on the ground that it arbitrarily abrogates and curtails the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioners to carry on trade or business and the same was erroneous and suffered from the vice of non-application of mind.
The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (‘MPCB’), vide order dated 10-2-2009 constituted a Committee regarding regulation of activities of worship and idol immersion and in June 2010, based on the recommendations of the Committee, finalized the guidelines for idol immersion. On 12-5-2020, the guidelines were revised and contained directives for idol makers and pooja organizing committees. Clause 2.0(i) of the revised guidelines mandated the idol makers/craftsman to make idols of natural bio-degradable, eco-friendly raw materials without any toxic and inorganic raw materials. The said clause bans the use of PoP for making idols and prohibits the use of single use plastic and thermocol materials.
The Court noted that after the issuance of Revised Guidelines, an Expert Committee was constituted by the CPCB, and the Committee had clarified that the guidelines issued by the CPCB were advisory in nature.
The Court, after considering the recommendations made by the Expert Committee, modified the interim order dated 30-1-2025 passed in the present case and thus permitted the members of the petitioner’s associations and any other artisans to make idols of PoP subject to compliance with the directions dated 11-9-2012 issued in Vinod Rameshchandra Gupta v. Municipal Corpn., Nagpur, Writ Petition No. 4172 of 2012.
The Court directed that such idols made of PoP should not be immersed without leave of this Court. The Court further directed the State Government to take a policy decision regarding immersion of idols made of PoP in the light of the recommendations dated 21-5-2025 issued by the Expert Committee of CPCB.
The matter would next be listed on 30-6-2025.
[Rohit Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, Public Interest Litigation No. 96 of 2024, decided on 9-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners/Applicants: Uday Warunjikar with Jenish Jain i/b Satish Muley, for Petitioner in WPST/12887/2025 and for Respondent 22 in PIL/96/2024; Kiran S. Bapat, Senior Advovate i/b Prasanna Kutti with Jagrut Patil and S.I. Nandale, for Petitioner in WP/5214/2025; Uday Warunjikar i/b Prasanna Kutti with Jagrut Patil and Preeti Bhavsar, for Petitioner in WP/5436/2025; Satish Muley with Mosin Naik and Zhoaib Sayyed, for Petitioner in WPST/16162/2025; S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate with Satyajeet Joshi and Vijay Bolinjkar, for Petitioner in WP/665/2025 and for Respondent 21 in PIL/96/2024; Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate i/b Ronita Bhattacharya Bector and Pritha Paul, for the Petitioner in PIL/96/2024; Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate i/b Prasanna Kutti, Jagrut Patil, for Applicant in IA/4008/2025; Uday Warunjikar i/b Prasanna Kutti with Jagrut Patil and S.I. Nandale, for Applicant in IAST/13627/2025; Drupad S. Patil with Dheeraj D. Patil, for Applicant in IA/7595/2025.
For the Respondents: Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with S.K. Mishra, Special Counsel, Neha Bhide, Govt. Pleader, O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and G.R. Rahuwanshi, AGP for Respondents 1, 4, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 in PIL/96/2024 and for Respondent 2 in WP/5214/2025 and WP/5435/2025 and for Respondent 3 in WPST/12887/2025 and WPST/16162/2025 and for Respondents 1 and 5 in WP/665/2025; Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Santosh Parad for respondent-MCGM; Uday Warunjikar with Satish Muley, Mosin Naik and Zhoaib Sayyed, for Respondent 22 in PIL/96/2024; Jaya Bagwe for MPCB, Respondent in all Petitions; N.R. Bubna, for MBMC and Union of India-Respondent in PIL/96/2024 and WP/665/2025; Pooja Joshi Deshpande for Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, Respondent 7 in PIL/96/2024; Sandeep Shinde, for Respondent 8 in PIL/96/2024; Rakesh Bhatkar, for Respondent 12 in PIL/96/2024; Pavan Patil with Dewang Mhatre, for Union of India, Respondent in WP/665/2025, WP/5214/2025 and WP/5436/2025; Ketaki Patil i/b Abhijit Adagule, for Kolhapur Muncipal Corporation, Respondent 18 in PIL/96/2024; Pooja Dange with Ranjit Jadahv, for Pune and Nagar Muncipal Corporation, Respondent; Abhinandan Vagyani and C.M. Lokesh, for CPCB, Respondent 1 in WP/5214/2025 and WP/5436/2025, for Respondent 2 in WPST/16162/2025, for Respondent 3 in WP/665/2025 and for Respondent 20 in PIL/96/2024 in all Petitions; R.V. Dighe i/b. A.S. Rao for Ambarnath Municipal Council, Respondent 10 in PIL/96/2024; Jagdish G. Aradwad ( Reddy ) with Ashwini Jadhav, for Respondent 4 in WP/665/2025; Sarang S. Aradhye with Shantanu Gurav, for Respondent 14 in PIL/96/2024; Mandar Limaye, for Respondent 5 in PIL/96/2024; Pooja Joshi with Rupa Singh, for Respondent 7; Kaushik Mhatre i/b Chinmay Jawae, for Intervenor in IA/18770/2025.
