Odisha Government Work at Jagannath Temple is in ‘Larger Public Interest to Benefit Pilgrims, SC Decides : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-1: Indian culture will cover the salient aspects of Art Forms, Literature, and Architecture from ancient to modern times.

Key Phrases: Shree Mandira Parikrama project, Jagannath temple, The Ancient Monuments, and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, National Monuments Authority (NMA), Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court backed the Odisha Government’s initiative under the Shree Mandira Parikrama project to re-develop the famous Puri Jagannath temple premises to provide basic facilities for lakhs of pilgrims while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation petition which described the work as "unauthorized and illegal constructions".
Dismissing the petition filed for lack of “substance” and imposing costs, the Bench noted that such petitions that “stall” development work should be “nipped in the bud”.

Jagannath Temple

The temple is one of the holiest Vaishnava Hindu Char Dham (four divine sites) sites also including Rameswaram, Badrinath, Puri, and Dwarka.
It is located in Puri in the State of Odisha on the eastern coast of India.
The present temple was rebuilt from the 12th century CE onwards, on the site of an earlier temple and begun by Anantavarman Chodaganga Deva, the first king of the Eastern Ganga dynasty.
The Temple is called White Pagoda for its colour the way Konark Temple is called 'Black Pagoda.
It is a fine specimen of the Pancharath style of Odissian temple architecture.

What did the petition claim?

The petition had claimed that the work was happening in a “prohibited area” of the temple and had desecrated and destroyed the archaeological remains of the 12th century CE heritage site.
The “constructions” violated the constitutional mandate of Article 49 (protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance) and the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act.
There was a complete embargo on construction in the prohibited area. A site inspection in 2021 had observed that there was a "fabrication" of several unsanctioned and unauthorised structures in the prohibited areas of the temple, including tourists, sheds, and kiosk desks which have not been included in the project proposal of the temple management and administrators.
No ground penetrating radar survey was done to check the sub-soil for objects of historical or archaeological interest lying buried there.

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (or AMASR Act) provides for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and the protection of sculptures, carvings, and other like objects.
It was passed in 1958.
It was amended in 2010 and the main features of the amendments were the creation of a “prohibited area” 100 meters around every national monument where no construction, public or private is permitted, a “regulated area” 200 meters beyond the prohibited area, where any construction requires the permission of a newly constituted National Monuments Authority.

National Monuments Authority (NMA)

National Monuments Authority (NMA) under the Ministry of Culture, Government of India has been set up as per provisions of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains AMASR (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010.
Several functions have been assigned to the NMA for the protection and preservation of monuments and sites through the management of the prohibited and regulated area around the centrally protected monuments.
One of these responsibilities of NMA is also to consider grant of permissions to applicants for construction-related activity in the prohibited and regulated area.

Odisha Government’s arguments:

The word 'construction' did not mean repair, renovation, or cleaning of drainage works, and toilets, adjacent to the temple.
It is going to be a world heritage site. This is a priority project for the State. Whatever issues there were, they were resolved in the spirit of understanding.
Redevelopment of the temple only covers one percent of the Parikrama area.
The ASI has given permission, and the National Monuments Authority has also given permission.

What is the ASI’s role in this?

The 12th-century CE temple is a centrally protected monument, with the ASI as its custodian.
As per the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, the National Monuments Authority (NMA) grants approval for construction and mandates that a heritage impact assessment study must be carried out before developmental work around any monument of archaeological importance with a built-up area over 5,000 square meters.
The Jagannath temple is spread over 43,301.36 square meters.

What did the court say?

The redevelopment work was being done in the public interest to benefit pilgrims.
The work was “completely in tune” with the Supreme Court’s directions in the Mrinalini Padhi versus Union of India judgment for “protection, preservation and effective administration of the Shree Jagannath temple in Puri”.
The work also involves a 75-meter corridor around the Meghanada Prachira, the outer wall of the temple, to avoid any risk of stampedes during the annual chariot festival.
The State government had already given a statement in the State High Court that no archaeological remains had been either disturbed or destroyed during the redevelopment work.

Court’s observation regarding PIL:

Public Interest Litigation other than in public interest is detrimental to the public interest at large. In the recent past, mushrooming growth of PILs has been seen.
Petitions are either public interest litigation or personal interest litigation.
A highly derogatory practice of filing frivolous petitions encroaches on valuable judicial time which can otherwise be utilized for addressing genuine concerns.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties.
It was introduced by the efforts of Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer.
It is a relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi.

Conclusion:

Development along with the lowest adverse impact on the cultural heritage should be the aim of government. As there is a large untapped potential for tourism in India, government should adopt a balanced approach towards development and monument protection. Development should not be done at the expense of our cultural heritage.
The PIL activists should be responsible and accountable. Since it is an extraordinary remedy available at a cheaper cost to all citizens of the country, it should not be used by all litigants as a substitute for ordinary ones or as a means to file frivolous complaints.

Source: The Hindu BL, Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. Why is there a need for a balanced approach toward developmental work and monument protection in India?