Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in Shivaji Maharaj Statue Case, Upholds Bombay High Court’s Removal Order
Apex Court Allows Petitioners to Approach High Court Again, Says No Interference Warranted in Dispute Over Mormugao Port Authority Land
The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s order directing the removal of a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj erected on land belonging to the Mormugao Port Authority in Goa. The decision effectively leaves the High Court’s directions intact while permitting the petitioners to seek appropriate relief before the High Court.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu heard the Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court’s April 7, 2026 order. During the hearing, the Bench indicated it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Following the Court’s observations, the petitioners withdrew the plea, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application before the High Court seeking modification or variation of its earlier order.
The dispute concerns a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj installed on land owned by the Mormugao Port Authority at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. The Port Authority had approached the Bombay High Court alleging that the installation amounted to unauthorized encroachment on its property despite repeated complaints to local authorities and the police.
In its April 7 judgment, the Bombay High Court held that the statue had been erected in “gross violation” of applicable laws and without legal authorization. The court directed its removal and strongly criticized both the Goa Government and local authorities for failing to prevent what it described as an illegal occupation of public land.
The High Court observed that the State had acted as a “mere bystander” despite repeated complaints regarding the alleged encroachment. It emphasized that maintaining law and order and protecting public property remain statutory responsibilities of the State Police and civil administration, irrespective of whether the land belongs to a Central Government authority such as the Mormugao Port Authority.
Rejecting the State’s argument that the Port Authority could rely on the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect its property, the High Court ruled that the existence of central security forces does not absolve the State Police of their legal obligations. The judges remarked that similar reasoning could not be accepted for airports, railway properties, or other central installations protected by the CISF.
The High Court also questioned the inaction of the Bogda Police Station, observing that the allegations disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence of criminal trespass under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It held that the police ought to have considered registration of an FIR instead of remaining inactive.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court had effectively granted final relief while deciding an interim application. However, after the apex court expressed its unwillingness to intervene, the petitioners chose to withdraw the appeal rather than pursue the matter further at that stage.
With the Supreme Court declining to interfere, the Bombay High Court’s removal order continues to remain operative. The petitioners retain the liberty to approach the High Court for any modification of its order, but unless such relief is granted, the directions regarding removal of the statue remain legally enforceable.
