SC Rejects Tamil Nadu Plea: No Public Funds for Statues

September 23, 2025

Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Using Public Money for Statues, Rejects Tamil Nadu’s Karunanidhi Memorial Plea

Apex court questions why taxpayer funds should glorify former leaders, upholds Madras High Court’s ban on statues in public places

Tamil Nadu government told to withdraw plea; advised to seek relief from High Court if needed

By  Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 23, 2025:
The Supreme Court of India has firmly ruled that public money should not be used to construct statues, rejecting the Tamil Nadu government’s plea to install a bronze statue of former Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi in Tirunelveli district.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the order on Monday, questioning the rationale behind spending taxpayer funds to “glorify former leaders.”

“It is not permitted. Why are you using public funds for glorifying your former leaders?” the bench observed during the brief hearing.

Background of the Case

The Tamil Nadu government had sought permission to place a bronze statue and name board of Karunanidhi near the public arch entrance of the Valliyoor Daily Vegetable Market on the Main Road in Tirunelveli district.

The proposal was part of a memorial initiative to honour Karunanidhi, a towering figure in Tamil Nadu politics and a five-time Chief Minister, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 94.

However, the Madras High Court had earlier ruled that the state government cannot issue orders granting permission to install statues in public places, citing public inconvenience and traffic congestion.

Madras High Court’s Observations

In its earlier order, the High Court emphasised that:

  • Statues in public places often lead to traffic congestion and public hardship.
  • The government should instead consider creating a ‘Leaders Park’ where citizens, especially youth, can learn about the ideas and ideologies of past leaders.
  • The Supreme Court had already passed an order prohibiting the installation of statues in public places, and the state government cannot override that directive.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The apex court upheld the Madras High Court’s ruling and dismissed the Tamil Nadu government’s Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing the state, requested the bench to clarify whether the arch — which was not specifically challenged — could still be permitted, noting that ₹30 lakh had already been spent on it.

The court declined to entertain this submission, stating it would not get into the issue of the arch since it was outside the scope of the current challenge.

Key Points from the Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Public Funds Not for Glorification: Taxpayer money should be used for public welfare, not for memorials that glorify political leaders.
  2. Upholding Precedent: The court reinforced its earlier stance against statues in public places.
  3. Traffic and Public Safety: Statues can cause congestion and inconvenience, impacting daily life.
  4. Alternative Suggestions: The idea of a dedicated park for leaders was seen as a more constructive approach.

Political Context

Karunanidhi, popularly known as Kalaignar, was a central figure in the Dravidian movement and the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) party. His political career spanned over six decades, marked by social justice initiatives, Tamil cultural advocacy, and infrastructural development.

While his supporters view memorials as a way to preserve his legacy, critics argue that such projects should be funded privately, not through public coffers.

Public Reaction

The ruling has sparked debate across Tamil Nadu and beyond:

  • Supporters of the decision say it protects taxpayer money and prioritises public needs over political symbolism.
  • Opponents argue that memorials for leaders like Karunanidhi are part of cultural heritage and deserve state support.

Social media platforms saw mixed reactions, with some praising the judiciary for standing firm on fiscal responsibility, while others accused the court of undervaluing the contributions of past leaders.

Legal Significance

This judgment reinforces the principle that public funds must be used for public benefit and not for projects that serve political or symbolic purposes.

It also strengthens earlier Supreme Court directives against statues in public spaces, setting a precedent that could influence similar cases in other states.

Implications for Future Projects

The ruling could impact:

  • State-led memorial initiatives for political leaders.
  • Urban planning policies regarding public spaces.
  • Budget allocations for cultural and heritage projects.

Governments may now be more cautious in proposing memorials funded by taxpayers, opting instead for privately funded or community-supported projects.

Karunanidhi’s Legacy

Karunanidhi’s political journey began in the 1950s, and he went on to serve as Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister five times between 1969 and 2011. Known for his oratory skills and literary contributions, he was a champion of Tamil identity and social welfare programmes.

His supporters believe memorials are essential to inspire future generations, while critics insist that his legacy can be honoured through educational and social initiatives rather than statues.

Next Steps for Tamil Nadu Government

The Supreme Court advised the Tamil Nadu government to withdraw its plea and approach the Madras High Court for any relief it seeks regarding the arch or related structures.

This means the state will have to reframe its proposal within the legal boundaries set by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Tamil Nadu’s plea marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the use of public funds for memorials. By prioritising public welfare and urban convenience over political symbolism, the court has set a clear precedent for future governance.

Whether the state chooses to pursue alternative ways to honour Karunanidhi — such as the proposed ‘Leaders Park’ — remains to be seen. For now, the ruling sends a strong message: public money is for public good, not political glorification.

ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES