'Wholly Impermissible In Democracy': MP High Court Directs State To Ensure That Sonam Raghuwanshi's Effigy Is Not Burnt On Dusshera

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Friday (September 26), directed the State Authorities to ensure that any person or any organization does not burn an effigy of Sonam Raghuwanshi, accused of murdering her husband during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, on Dusshera/Vijaydashmi in place of Ravana. 

Remarking that such an act is wholly impermissible Justice Pranay Verma, said:

"From the pamphlet and the other documents which have been brought by the petitioner on record it is evident that respondent No.6 proposes to burn effigy of daughter of the petitioner on Vijayadashmi on 02.10.2025 in place of effigy of Ravana...In case the same is correct and respondent No.6 intends to do so then the same would be wholly impermissible in a democratic country like India. Even if the daughter of the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and whatsoever may be the grievance of respondent against her and her family members it cannot be permitted to resort to such effigy burning which would certainly violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner, her daughter as well as his entire family. Such action on part of respondent No.6 or anyone else cannot be permitted"

The court thus directed the State authorities to ensure that on the occasion of Vijayadashmi on 02.10.2025, the respondent organization or any other person or organization "does not burn the effigy of petitioner's daughter or any other individual in place of the effigy of Ravana".

The court was hearing a plea by Sonam's mother seeking directions against an organization (respondent no 6) named 'People Against Unequal Rules Used to Shelter Harassment' to refrain from burning the statue of her daughter or from undertaking any similar actions of public humiliation. She further sought directions to ensure no 'unlawful or unconstitutional' actions were carried out against the petitioner and her family.  

The counsel for the petitioner contended that such actions of the organization were against "all canons of law" and were "gross violation of the fundamental rights" of the petitioner and her family. It was asserted that "such an act cannot be permitted to take place which shall tarnish the image of the petitioner and his family permanently".

The counsel for the respondents/State submitted that due inquiry in the matter shall be made and action in accordance with law would be taken.

Passing the direction to the state the court disposed of the petition. 

Case Title: Sangita v State of Madhya Pradesh (WP-38824-2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 198

For Petitioner: Advocate Zenith Chhablani

For State: Government Advocate Raghav Shrivastava

Click here to read/download Order