The Supreme Court denied a request to halt building of the Puri Heritage Corridor surrounding the historic Jagannath Puri Temple on Friday. Construction efforts were said to be causing cracks in the 13th-century structure’s foundations.
The top court dubbed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) “Publicity Interest Litigation,” despite the fact that it was brought “in the interest of the general public and to conserve the heritage of Lord Shree Jagannath.”
The Supreme Court was hearing arguments challenging an earlier ruling by the Odisha High Court to allow the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to assess whether any damage to the temple had occurred as a result of the building activity.
The plea, which was filed in response to the HC order, said that the HC should have issued an interim halt to the work because the historic temple’s foundations were being harmed as a result.
The plea also questioned the legitimacy of the permissions received by the state government.The plea claimed that the Shree Jagannath Temple in Puri was declared a monument under the AMASR Act, 1958, through a Gazette Notification dated 3 February 1975, and that under Section 19(1) of the AMASR Act, no one, including the owner occupier, is permitted to construct any structure within the protected area.
It has been suggested that Section 20A of the AMASR Act makes it plain that no construction can be built within 100 metres of the forbidden area.
On one of the petitions, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani argued that under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act 1958, the State Government must acquire a NOC from the competent authority before carrying out any activity in a protected site.
The National Monuments Authority gave the State permission to proceed with the construction. The Director or Commissioner of Archeology, however, is the competent authority under the Act to give the NOC.
According to the petitioners, the State Government is attempting to create something by excavating more than 30 feet below ground level with large excavators, just near to Meghanad Pacheri, which is an integral part of the Temple.
The Supreme Court, remembering its earlier decision in the Mrinalini Padhi case, stated that governments cannot be prevented from working to provide basic services to visitors.
“Can the state be denied the right to make the necessary arrangements to supply devotees with basic amenities?” The answer is a clear no….the activity performed is in accordance with our earlier order in the Mrinalini Padhi case.”
According to Ashok Kumar Parija, Advocate General of Odisha, the State’s operations do not fall under the definition of “construction” under the AMASR Act.
“Any re-construction, repair and renovation of an existing structure or building, or construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains and drainage works and of public latrines, urinals and similar conveniences or the construction and maintenance of works meant for providing supply of water for public do not come with the ambit of “construction” according to Section 2(dc) of the AMASR Act.”
Senior Advocate Pinaki Mishra, arguing for a respondent, stated that approximately 15-20 lakh people attend the site during the annual Rath Yatra, and that there have been stampedes in the past. As a result, there was a need to clean up the region as well as improve pilgrim amenities. The great heritage project of the BJD-led Odisha government has caused quite a stir in the state.
The decision for the 800-crore project, which aims to attract more tourists by redeveloping major portions of the town and the area surrounding the temple complex, was unanimously passed in the state legislature in 2020.