Bombay High Court backs Dia Mirza over cracker-free Diwali campaign, slams BMC's decision to remove video

When civic duty meets political hostility the judiciary steps in as the guardian of fundamental freedoms In a decisive stand against the communalisation of a publicinterest initiative the Bombay High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on municipal authorities and political leaders for targeting actor Dia Mirza over her pro bono lsquocrackerless Diwalirsquo campaignpopcorn numberNov 3 descDay HC intervened in Dia Mirza controversy classDefaultThe Bombay High Court in Fort File PicShadab KhanDisapproving of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporationrsquos BMC decision to delete Mirzarsquos awareness video following political pushback the division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale firmly held that environmental protection is a 365day constitutional mandate not a political or religious battlegroundThe Bombay High Courtrsquos intervention in the Dia Mirza controversy raises a fundamental constitutional question Can a public authority withdraw a legitimate publicinterest message merely because it becomes politically inconvenient To explore this issue midday spoke with senior advocates who strongly applauded the judicial interventionMohini Priya advocateonrecord Supreme Court PicBy Special ArrangementFaith and environmentRonita Bhattacharya Bector environmental advocate National Green Tribunal and Bombay High Court said ldquoThere should be no conflation between practising onersquos faith and protecting the environment Raising awareness about ecofriendly celebrations in no way denigrates any religion and statements made by Dia Mirza are fully protected under Articles 19 and 21 of our Constitution Targeting someone when they come forward to protect the environment is completely unwarranted The High Court is entirely correct to call on elected bodies to refrain from engaging in such unfair and petty practicesrdquoDia Mirza whose video on celebrating Diwali without crackers was taken down by the BMC File PicMultiple layersMohini Priya advocateonrecord Supreme Court of India said ldquoThe Dia Mirza controversy goes far beyond an actor advocating a crackerfree Diwali It sits at the intersection of free speech secularism environmental protection and the constitutional duty of public institutions to act independently of political pressure The controversy is not simply about an actor advocating a crackerfree Diwali It concerns the intersection of freedom of expression secularism environmental protection and the constitutional obligation of public institutions to act independently of political pressurerdquoAccording to law of the land freedom of expression cannot depend on political approval Representation piciStockShe added ldquoThe Constitution protects both the right to celebrate and the right to advocate responsible celebration Neither should require political or religious clearance Citizens and representatives may freely challenge Dia Mirzarsquos views but public bodies must distinguish political disagreement from legally sound grounds for pulling an official campaign Ultimately constitutional secularism is tested not when everyone agrees but when the state remains steadfastly neutral despite oppositionrdquoKey fundamental rights issues highlighted by Advocate Mohini Priya1 Freedom of expression cannot depend on political approval Article 191a protects speech on public health and social responsibility While political leaders are entitled to disagree with Mirzarsquos message using political influence to coerce a civic body into suppressing it crosses a line Removing a lawful awareness video under pressure raises serious concerns of arbitrariness under Article 14 and creates a chilling effect under Article 191a2 Secularism requires institutional neutralityIn SR Bommai v Union of India 1994 the Supreme Court affirmed secularism as part of the Constitutionrsquos basic structure State institutions must act without religious bias An environmental appeal does not lose constitutional validity simply because it concerns a festival or because of the speakerrsquos background The identity of the messenger must not eclipse the legitimacy of the message3 Environmental protection is constitutional obligationArticle 21 guarantees the right to a healthy environment reinforced by Articles 48A and 51Ag In Arjun Gopal v Union of India the Supreme Court upheld firecracker regulation for public health While environmental rules must be applied consistently the solution to selective enforcement concerns is uniform regulation mdash not the suppression of civic advocacy4 The larger issue is institutional independenceA statutory authority must act strictly by constitutional principles not the political unpopularity of an individual As established in EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu 1974 arbitrariness is antithetical to equality The High Courtrsquos stance sets a vital precedent for administrative independence far beyond this single caseActivist SpeakSumaira Abdulali Founder Awaaz FoundationlsquoI thank the Bombay High Court for ordering Dia Mirzarsquos video to be reuploaded She and the BMC were following the guidelines of the court Celebrate Diwali with light not smoke And let court orders be enforced without fear or favourrsquoZoru Bhathena citizen activistlsquoThe issue was never with the BMC they were following court guidelines The issue was with who pressured the municipal body to remove the video The MLA BJPrsquos Ameet Satam does not have these powers Similar instances were seen in Mumbai when the Gokhale bridge was shut down even when expert reports said otherwisersquo