The Bombay High Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for removing a public awareness video featuring actor Dia Mirza from its pollution-free Diwali campaign. A division bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale expressed unhappiness over the civic body's decision, which followed objections raised by Mumbai Mayor Ritu Tawde and the city's BJP chief Ameet Satam.
Court Observations on Secularism and Communal Harmony
The bench observed that the city of Mumbai survives on a feeling of togetherness and that this balance ought not to be disturbed by loose comments made by certain individuals. Without naming any political leader, the court stated it was disturbed by comments made against celebrities who participated in and supported the BMC's public awareness campaign highlighting the harmful effects of firecrackers on noise and air pollution. The judges emphasised that India is a secular country and that they were hurt by the controversy. The court noted that the issue pertains to the environment and that every person, irrespective of religion and caste, breathes the same air.
Background of the Campaign and Controversy
The BMC had roped in several celebrities, including Mirza, actors Madhuri Dixit and Nishigandha Wad, and cricketer Ajinkya Rahane, to record video messages urging citizens to curb noise and air pollution. The campaign followed suggestions made by the Bombay High Court itself. While Mirza's video was removed on Sunday, the videos featuring Dixit, Wad, and Rahane continued to remain available on the BMC's social media platforms. The removal occurred within hours of Satam objecting to Mirza's inclusion on social media platform X, questioning why she was offering lessons on celebrating Diwali. Mayor Tawde subsequently backed the move, accusing the actor of being opposed to Hindutva.
Why did the Bombay High Court ask the BMC to restore Dia Mirza's Diwali campaign video?
The Bombay High Court asked the BMC to restore the video because the campaign was undertaken at the court's suggestion to address air and noise pollution, a secular public health issue affecting all citizens regardless of religion. The bench held that the removal following political objections disturbed communal harmony and undermined public confidence in the Constitution.
Court's Disposition and Direction to BMC
The High Court stated that the BMC took very effective steps and that celebrities conveyed a message of togetherness. The bench observed that when such a task was undertaken with solemnity, there was no room for factionalism. The court said it would be ideal for the BMC to restore the deleted video to restore the confidence of people in the Constitution, leaving the final decision to the civic body. The bench's direction underscores the obligation of public authorities to act independently of political pressure when executing court-directed public health mandates.
Political Reactions and Actor's Response
The controversy drew sharp political reactions. The BJP alleged that Hindu festivals were being selectively targeted in the name of environmental protection. Opposition leaders questioned whether the BMC had bowed to political pressure by removing Mirza's video. Mirza defended her participation, stating she recorded the video in public interest following a court directive and questioning why anyone would object to efforts to reduce air pollution, which is a matter of public health.
Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
Campaign Objective | Pollution-free Diwali awareness (air and noise pollution) |
Celebrities Engaged | Dia Mirza, Madhuri Dixit, Nishigandha Wad, Ajinkya Rahane |
Video Status Post-Objection | Mirza's video removed; others retained on BMC social media |
Political Objections | Mumbai BJP Chief Ameet Satam, Mayor Ritu Tawde |
Court's Key Observation | India is secular; balance of togetherness must not be disturbed |
Court's Direction | Ideal to restore video to restore confidence in Constitution |
The bench's intervention highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the autonomy of civic bodies in executing public health directives, particularly when such execution intersects with environmental concerns that transcend communal or political lines. The matter remains significant for the precedent it sets regarding political interference in court-mandated awareness campaigns.