High Court raps BMC and political leaders over removal of Dia Mirza's cracker-free Diwali video

Actress Dia Mirza ran a campaign carrying the message of a "cracker-free Diwali" without taking any fee. On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court sharply rebuked the civic administration and political leaders for targeting the campaign. The court had intervened in the dispute on November 3.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had removed Mirza's awareness video after political opposition. A bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale disapproved of the decision. The bench said firmly that protecting the environment is a constitutional responsibility to be observed on all 365 days of the year, and not a matter of political or religious conflict.

The case raises a basic constitutional question: can a public authority withdraw a public-interest message because it has become politically inconvenient? Senior lawyers strongly welcomed the court's intervention.

Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, an environmental lawyer who practises in the National Green Tribunal and the Bombay High Court, said: "Practising one's faith and protecting the environment must not be confused. Raising awareness about eco-friendly festivals does not insult any religion. Dia Mirza's statements are fully protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Targeting a person who comes forward to save the environment is plainly wrong. The High Court was entirely right to say that elected bodies should keep away from such unjust and petty acts."

Mohini Priya, an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court, said the dispute is not merely about an actress promoting a cracker-free Diwali. It brings together freedom of expression, secularism, environmental protection and the constitutional duty of public institutions to work free of political pressure. The right to celebrate a festival and the right to insist on celebrating it responsibly are both protected by the Constitution, she said, and neither should need political or religious permission. Citizens and elected representatives can certainly challenge Mirza's views, she said, but public institutions must recognise the difference between political disagreement and the legal grounds for withdrawing an official campaign.

Mohini Priya made four points. First, freedom of expression does not depend on political approval. Article 19(1)(a) protects views on public health and social responsibility. Removing a lawful awareness video under pressure raises serious concern of arbitrariness under Article 14.

Second, on secularism, the Supreme Court in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. An environmental appeal does not lose its validity because it relates to a festival or because of who is speaking.

Third, on environmental protection, Article 21 guarantees the right to a healthy environment, reinforced by Articles 48A and 51A(g). In the Arjun Gopal v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court upheld controls on firecrackers for public health. Fourth, on institutional independence, arbitrariness is opposed to equality under E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974).

Sumaira Abdulali, founder of Awaaz Foundation, said: "I thank the High Court for ordering that Dia Mirza's video be uploaded again. She and the municipal corporation were following the court's guidelines. Celebrate Diwali with light, not with smoke."

Civic activist Zoru Bhathena said: "The question was never about the municipal corporation, which was acting on the court's directions. The question is who pressured the corporation to remove the video. The MLA [BJP's Amit Satam] has no such powers."