The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday disposed of a petition arising out of a three-year-old dispute over the installation of the statue of Gurjar king Mihir Bhoj in Haryana’s Kaithal district, observing that the controversy had largely subsided with time and cautioning parties against wasting judicial time on what it termed unnecessary litigation.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan said the issue, which had triggered tensions between Gujjar and Rajput communities over the naming of a historical figure, “must have lost its sting due to the passage of time”.

The controversy broke out in July 2023 in Kaithal district over the unveiling of a statue of 9th-century ruler Mihir Bhoj, with an inscription identifying him as “Gurjar Pratihar”. The label triggered protests from the Rajput community, which claims the ruler as part of its lineage, leading to tensions between the two groups. The unrest saw a police charge on protesting Rajputs with batons, resignation threats from several district-level BJP functionaries, and calls for removing the “Gurjar” reference from the plaque.

Taking note of the situation at the time, the High Court stayed the inauguration of the statue while allowing its installation, and the state government subsequently constituted a committee under the divisional commissioner to resolve the dispute. The court also asked stakeholders to refrain from public statements and social media exchanges until the committee arrived at a decision.

When the matter was taken up on Friday, the Haryana Government sought clarification regarding references in an earlier order, arguing that the dispute was specifically between Gujjars and Rajputs rather than the broader Kshatriya category.

The bench, however, made it clear that such references in the earlier proceedings were merely submissions of the state counsel and not findings of the court. “It is not our finding. It was the contention of the state counsel,” Chief Justice Nagu observed.

Declining to engage further with the controversy, the court said the matter should be left to the state-constituted committee. The court directed the panel to examine the issue and submit its report expeditiously, preferably within 60 days, adding that if the report is not filed within the stipulated period, the case may be listed again.

During the hearing, the bench expressed strong displeasure over the continuation of the petition, questioning the need for judicial intervention in what it described as a matter capable of being resolved administratively and socially.

“Why are you dragging the court into this controversy unnecessarily? There is nothing in this case,” the bench remarked, adding that valuable court time was being spent on issues that did not warrant adjudication.

In a sharp rebuke, Chief Justice Nagu also criticised the tendency to pursue such litigation without sufficient grounds. He observed that courts are compelled to “burn the midnight oil” to examine petitions and pass reasoned orders even when matters lack substance. “Anybody comes forward and files a petition under Article 226 and expects the court to decide it. Even if the lawyer does not argue, the court has to burn the midnight oil and pass a speaking order,” he said.

The bench further warned that such practices contribute to the docket burden and delay adjudication of more pressing cases.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice also asked why the cost should not be imposed on parties for pursuing what it termed frivolous proceedings. “Why should we not dismiss this with costs? You are wasting the time of the court,” the bench said, even suggesting that parties consider making contributions to public causes.

Ultimately, while refraining from imposing costs at this stage, the court disposed of the petition, leaving it to the state-appointed committee to bring the dispute to a close.