The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) has stayed a controversial plan to include the name of Sonam Raghuvanshi in an effigy-burning ritual during Dussehra celebrations, terming the matter sensitive and in need of judicial scrutiny.
Organisers in Indore had announced that this year’s Surpanakha Dahan would feature an 11-headed effigy symbolising evil, with one head carrying the name of Sonam Raghuvanshi. Sonam is the prime accused in the widely discussed ‘honeymoon murder’ case of her husband, a crime that has dominated public attention in Madhya Pradesh for months. Supporters of the victim’s family had argued that burning Sonam’s effigy would serve as a symbolic punishment.
However, the announcement quickly attracted legal and social backlash. Petitioners approached the High Court, arguing that targeting an accused person in this manner amounted to defamation, character assassination, and a violation of personal dignity, especially while the trial is ongoing. They also questioned whether such symbolism, during a religious and cultural festival, risked inflaming public sentiment and prejudicing the judicial process.
The bench, acknowledging the potential consequences, issued an interim order restraining the organisers from including Sonam Raghuvanshi’s name or likeness in the effigy until the next hearing. The stay means the Surpanakha Dahan can proceed as a ritual event but without personal references that could spark controversy or be seen as prejudicial. During the hearing, the court observed that Dussehra’s tradition of effigy burning is intended to symbolise the triumph of good over evil, but modern adaptations cannot cross the boundaries of law. Judges stressed that while symbolic protest has its place in society, it must not encroach upon the rights of individuals or interfere with judicial proceedings.
The controversy has stirred debate across Indore. While some residents and activists supported the effigy plan as an expression of public anger, many others criticised it as a dangerous precedent, warning that turning live criminal cases into festival theatrics undermines both the law and social harmony.
For now, the High Court’s intervention has defused tensions, but the matter remains sub judice. The next hearing will determine whether such symbolic acts can legally be linked with ongoing criminal trials or if organisers must confine themselves strictly to mythological representations.
By pausing the event, the High Court has underscored a larger principle: cultural expression must remain sensitive to personal rights, legal boundaries, and the sanctity of ongoing judicial processes.
