Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Monday sought the Central Pollution Control Board‘s reply on a committee’s recommendations on the immersion of plaster of Paris (PoP) idols.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik were hearing petitions by associations of idol-makers challenging a clause in the CPCB’s May 12, 2020 guidelines that bans the immersion of PoP idols. They were seeking relief for the Ganesh festival which will be held in August.

Advocate Uday Warunjikar, for a petitioner, informed the bench of “one change of circumstance”. He said the state govt had appointed a committee and its recommendations have been forwarded to the CPCB. “If that is considered then perhaps something different is possible,” he said.
To the judge’s query regarding the committee, advocate general Birendra Saraf replied that “considering it affects a large body of people, we appointed a committee to go into this entire aspect”. He said the panel made suggestions that in certain circumstances, immersion may be permitted. “It may not be permitted in a lake, etc, but in a bigger body like oceans or something… in certain situations with certain safeguards it can be permitted.”
Saraf said that ultimately it is a process. “State govt also feels that ultimately even if we have to achieve this (ban), in some phase-wise manner it can be done… The committee’s recommendations have been forwarded to the CPCB for consideration.”
Senior advocate Mihir Desai with advocate Ronita Bhattacharya Bector were representing PIL petitioners, including three activists and nine clay-based artisans seeking enforcement of the ban. Desai said that unless the CPCB changes its guidelines, the ban will remain in force.
Warunjukar then urged that considering the time left for the Ganesh festival and that it takes four months for preparations, telephonic instructions should be taken from the Delhi-based CPCB. But the judges said the CPCB must examine the committee’s report and file an affidavit. Warunjikar also expressed anxiety on behalf of his clients, saying that if the CPCB is going to take time to file its reply, then the HC must go ahead with a full-fledged hearing. The judges said it is not possible to hear the matter with HC closing later this week for summer vacation. They would take up the hearing immediately on the first day of HC reopening.
The CPCB’s advocate also sought time to take instructions and file a reply. Therefore the judges directed the CPCB to file a reply by June 1 and posted the hearing on June 9.