The Supreme Court referenced the renovation efforts undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at Sunder Nursery and Humayun’s Tomb in Delhi, highlighting how these endeavors have contributed to the preservation of these historic sites.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, Yesterday (March 12th), underscored the importance of renovating historical monuments, stating that such activities are often essential for the preservation of these structures. The court emphasized that renovation efforts are justifiable as long as they do not alter the fundamental characteristics of the monuments.
The discussion arose during a session presided over by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, who referenced the successful restoration projects undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), notably at Sunder Nursery and Humayun’s Tomb in Delhi. These projects were highlighted as exemplary cases where heritage sites were preserved through careful renovation.
Justice Khanna remarked,
“Sometimes the Archaeological Survey has to step in. Humayun Tomb is worth visiting today because of renovation. (Look at) Sunder Nursery etc. If work is done properly, then fine.”
This statement underscores the necessity and positive outcomes of appropriate renovation work.
The court’s observations came while addressing a petition filed by TR Ramesh, a temple rights activist, who expressed concerns over the construction and renovation activities conducted by the Tamil Nadu State’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department within certain temples. Ramesh challenged these activities, arguing they compromised the integrity of heritage structures.
Justice Khanna, during the proceedings, acknowledged the need for renovations, stating,
“Sometimes alterations are required to make it better.”
This reflects the judiciary’s recognition of the delicate balance between preservation and improvement.
Ramesh’s legal battle began with a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Madras High Court, challenging the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964. He argued that these rules were being misapplied by the HR&CE Department, leading to unauthorized alterations of heritage sites. Ramesh contended that the rules exceeded the boundaries set by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, particularly sections 116(2) (xvii) and 116(2) (xix), which were designed to protect religious structures and artifacts in their original state.
Despite his efforts, the Madras High Court dismissed the plea, maintaining the validity of the 1964 rules but suggesting the removal of outdated provisions. Following this, Ramesh escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which ultimately declined to overturn the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s stance was based on the premise that the challenge to the 1964 rules could not be predicated merely on speculative future legal violations.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s deliberations highlight the nuanced approach required in the preservation of historical monuments. The court’s statements,
“Sometimes the Archaeological Survey has to step in. Humayun Tomb is worth visiting today because of renovation. (Look at) Sunder Nursery etc. If work is done properly, then fine,”
and
“Sometimes alterations are required to make it better,”
-reflect a judicial acknowledgment of the complexities involved in maintaining and enhancing heritage sites, balancing the need for preservation with the benefits of thoughtful renovation.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Supreme Court of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
