Explained: Supreme Court rejects pleas against excavation around Puri temple, what is the case?

Last week, a High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice S Muralidhar and R K Pattnaik had asked the state government to file an affidavit before June 20 and had listed the case for hearing on June 22. The court had earlier also asked the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to file an affidavit before the court and even conduct a joint inspection along with the state government.

The ASI then told the court that the state government had no requisite permission for the project.

Following the ASI’s affidavit, different petitioners (not the ones before the High Court) have moved the Supreme Court. The SC is examining whether such an appeal through a Special Leave Petition can be permitted before hearing the plea on merits.

What is the construction in question?

Conceived in 2016, the ambitious Puri Heritage Corridor Project has become the centre of a political slugfest between the BJP and the BJD-ruled state government. It involves redevelopment of Puri into a heritage site at a cost of Rs 3,200 crore. The construction has been taken up by the Odisha Bridge and Construction Corporation (OBCC) under the state’s Works Department, while Tata Projects is running it on the ground.

The project includes 22 schemes redeveloping major portions of the temple town. The first phase of work, the cost of which is estimated at Rs 800 crore, began in February 2020. Following this, the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) approved the architectural design plan of the project.

The project includes redevelopment of the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) building; a Srimandir reception centre (capacity 600); Jagannath Cultural Centre including Raghunandan Library; integrated command and control centre; Badadanda heritage streetscape; improvement of Srimandir amenities; Sri Setu; Jagannath Ballav pilgrim centre; multilevel car parking; municipal market development; Swargadwar development; Pramod Udyan; Gurukulam; Mahodadhi market; beachfront development; Puri lake; Musa river revival plan; Atharnala; and housing for sevayats.

Construction around the Puri Jagannath temple. (Express photo)

What is the ASI’s role in this?

The 12th-century 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 metres. The Jagannath temple is spread over 43,301.36 square metres.

The NMA, which functions under the Union Ministry of Culture, was set up for the protection and preservation of monuments and sites through management of the prohibited and regulated area around the centrally protected monuments.

And what has it said about the project?

On September 4 , 2021, the NMA had issued a no objection certificate (NOC) to the state government for the construction of a cloakroom, a shelter pavilion, three toilets, an electrical room and a pavement within the prohibited 75-metre zone. The NMA’s approval was based on the understanding that public amenities do not come under the definition of construction and that the project would be carried out under ASI supervision.

However, after a joint inspection, ASI Director General V Vidyavathi flagged concerns on the project before the High Court. The affidavit filed on May 9 said that there was a possibility that the archaeological remains at the heritage site being destroyed due to the excavation work for the corridor.

On February 21, the ASI also wrote to the state government to review the the project for the development around the Puri Srimandir. “One point of discussion was the proposed reception centre which is at a distance of 75 metres from the temple (part falls under the prohibited area). The building is proposed to be used to hold devotees before they proceed to the main complex. Given that this would be very essential, it was decided that the state government would consider options to slightly move the building beyond 100 metres,” the ASI wrote. It added that moving the building beyond 100 metres would be good in the interest of security of the temple.

How has the state responded?

Advocate General Ashok Kumar Parija relied on the NOC granted by the NMA, arguing that the project has not strayed from the parameters on which the approval was granted. He also sought an opportunity to file a detailed response to the ASI’s affidavit, which the court granted.

The state government has also cited a 2019 verdict by Justice Arun Mishra which highlighted the lack of facilities and mismanagement of the Puri temple premises. In one of the several directions, the SC had also directed that “the ASI shall forthwith clear the plan for construction of sheds/permanent structures which is absolutely necessary”.

Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

On what ground is the project being opposed in the Supreme Court?

The petitioners have contended that the project has “no valid permission” while the Odisha government has insisted that it has. Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani contended that the construction was happening in violation of Section 20A of the Ancient Monuments Act that sets a minimum of of 100 metres within which construction around a protected monument is prohibited, except in exceptional circumstances with the permission of the central government or the ASI Director General.

For the state, Advocate General Ashok Kumar Parija argued that the activities currently being carried out, which are for building public conveniences such as wash rooms, cannot be termed construction within the meaning of the Act. He referred to the NOC from the NMA and added that “we are not doing one thing beyond this”.

(With inputs from Ananthakrishnan G)