Bombay HC clarifies PoP idol immersion case limited to environmental impact

Published 6 August 2026 · india

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 6, 2026) clarified that the litigation concerning immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols is confined to

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 6, 2026) clarified that the litigation concerning immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols is confined to the environmental impact of such immersion in natural water bodies and does not seek to interfere with the religious practices of the Hindu community. A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata made the observation during hearing of petitions related to the immersion of PoP idols. The Bench stated that the issue before it was limited to whether PoP idols are harmful to the ecosystem, and not whether Ganesh Visarjan as a religious practice could be banned. “We are not inviting any religious practice. We are not saying don’t use flowers, or agarbattis or don’t perform your rituals or pujas or anything else. We are only on the issue whether an idol made of a particular material is good for the ecosystem or not. We are on a very minute point.

Nobody is prohibiting you at all,” Justice Gadkari said. The clarification came when advocate Uday Warunjikar, appearing for Akhil Ganeshotsav Mandal, submitted that immersion of Ganesh idols in water bodies is an essential religious practice and the ‘Dharmashastra’ does not permit ‘non-immersion’ of Ganesh idols. Justice Gadkari responded, “Show us any judgment or scripture which says idol must be made of PoP and of a particular height only and that it must then be immersed in natural water bodies.” Warunjikar replied that ‘Dharmashastra’ only speaks about clay but not which forms of clay. “When it started it was ordinary clay and gradually we switched to shaadu maati and now PoP. So, Dharmashastra does not say PoP. But it says immersion of idols in water,” the counsel added. The counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala case, wherein three students had objected to singing the national anthem during school assembly and the top court had held that the High Court must not interfere in religious practices.

“Why are we going on national anthem? How is it related [to this]? Nobody is prohibiting you to practice your religion. You show us that PoP is an important raw material which must be used. We are simply not impressed with this citation and submission,” Justice Gadkari remarked. When Mr. Warunjikar cited another judgment of the Supreme Court on “essential religious practice”, Justice Gadkari made it clear that the court was not touching on this issue in the instant petitions. Weighting in, Justice Khata added: “We are not stopping immersion or any religious practice. We are only on whether any idol above PoP is allowed to be immersed in natural water bodies.” The judges asked Mr. Warunjikar if he could place any old Hindu scripture which mandated that an idol of Ganesh must be made of PoP. The counsel responded that when the scriptures were being written, PoP was not discovered so the material would have no mention in any of the scriptures.