Also Read - Delhi High Court Refuses Bail to Alleged Indian Mujahideen Operative in 2008 Serial Bomb Blast Case

The bench further noted that the senior officer at the Bogda Police Station ought to have considered registering an FIR on the basis of the allegations, which disclosed an offence of criminal trespass under Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a cognizable offence. Despite repeated pleas highlighting a potential law and order situation, the authorities had taken no steps, prompting the High Court to describe the State’s conduct as that of a bystander.

Consequently, the High Court directed the removal of the statue from the Port Authority’s land and called upon the concerned authorities to ensure compliance with the order.

Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking SIT Probe After Woman Alleged to be Murdered Found Alive

Supreme Court Proceedings

A petition challenging the High Court’s direction was listed before a partial Court working days bench of the Supreme Court composed of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu. The petitioners contended that the High Court had granted final relief at an interim stage, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench expressed a disinclination to interfere with the High Court’s order. In light of this stance, the petitioners opted to withdraw the case. The Supreme Court recorded the matter as dismissed as withdrawn.

Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Reduces Sentence After Finding Appellant Was Juvenile at Time of Offence

Nevertheless, the bench afforded the petitioners liberty to move an appropriate application before the Bombay High Court seeking a variation or modification of its order, should they wish to pursue any further relief on the matter.

Implications of the Order

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that interlocutory challenges to High Court orders directing the removal of unlawful constructions will not be entertained absent a demonstrable jurisdictional error. By granting liberty to approach the High Court for a variation, the Court preserved the petitioners’ right to seek relief while affirming the correctness of the High Court’s findings on the illegal nature of the statue’s installation.

Also Read - Plea filed in Karnataka High Court challenges parallel Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls for Greater Bengaluru

The High Court’s observations regarding the duty of the State police and executive authorities to act against trespass on property held by central or State entities reinforce the obligation of law‑enforcement agencies to intervene irrespective of the governing body responsible for the land’s security. The ruling also clarifies that reliance on central forces such as the CISF does not absolve the State police of their statutory responsibility to prevent and investigate criminal trespass.

In practical terms, the Mormugao Port Authority may now proceed with the removal of the statue in compliance with the High Court’s directive, while the petitioners retain the option to approach the High Court again if they seek to challenge specific aspects of the order, such as the manner or timeline of removal.

Also Read - Delhi High Court disposes of Vinesh Phogat's petition against Wrestling Federation of India