On 30th April, temple activist and president of Indic Collective Trust, T R Ramesh disclosed that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) department had informed the Madras High Court that it would not proceed with the unauthorised construction of 150 shops on the premises of Arunachaleswarar temple in Tiruvannamalai’s Rajagopuram. He stated, “After a quick hearing the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to direct that all construction activity in the temple site should be stopped immediately. Today when my Writ Petition came up before the Hon’ble 1st Bench, Govt and TN HRCE’s Special Counsel submitted that they are not proceeding with the shopping complex construction.”
T R Ramesh filed a miscellaneous petition and submitted that the court had already declared that a suitable person would only act as a caretaker handling administrative tasks if the real administrator was absent and the former was forbidden to make a much more significant policy decision involving the movement of funds. He added that the transfer of monies at the request of an appropriate person designated by the Commissioner or at the request of the Government cannot be considered voluntary, according to the verdict.
A bench of Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and G. Chandrasekharan J pronounced, “We are not inclined to pass any order in the matter. In W.P.No.34810 of 2023, the learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) has given an undertaking that they will not proceed with the construction, which is the subject matter of the impugned G.O. The said writ petition is tagged along with Suo motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 before the Special Bench. Place the matter on 02.07.2024.”
The petition challenged the legality of the Respondents’ designs to construct a shopping complex on land owned by the aforementioned 17 Temple in Tiruvannamalai, directly in front of the historic Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple. The funds for the project, which were taken from the temple’s accumulated fixed deposits and other investments, totalled Rs. 6.40 crores. It pointed out that the development was “in violation of the interim orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in this Writ Petition No. 24156 of 2021 on 15.11.2021 and consequently seeking an order forbearing the Respondents from utilising the or directing the utilisation of the funds and properties of Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple to build a shopping complex as approved by the 2nd Respondent vide G.O. Ms. No. 336 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E. 4-1) Department dated 14.09.2023.”
According to the petition, the 1st Respondent in this case granted “administrative sanction” for the construction of a shopping complex directly in front of the massive and significant Eastern Gopuram of the Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai. It elaborated, “The said approval is 21 given ostensibly on the basis of a letter R.C. No. 54571/2023/G1 dated 03.08.2023 and 08.09.2023 written by the 2nd Respondent Commissioner to the 1st Respondent Secretary to the Government. In the said G.O. No. 336, the 2nd Respondent has cited Announcement No. 223 made on 19.04.2023 in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by the Hon’ble Minister for the Religious Endowments Department that in the land belonging to Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai before the Eastern Gopuram, shops will be built at an estimated cost of Rs.5.99 crores.”
The motion underlined, “Based on the letter cited above sent by the 2nd Respondent Commissioner, the 1st Respondent Secretary to Government has accorded administrative sanction for an amount of Rs. 6.40 crores to be taken from the funds of the temple and to be carried out by the Public Works Department as a “Deposit Work” for the purpose of construction of shops in the temple land before the Eastern Gopuram.”
The petition stated that it is illegal to propose building a commercial centre in front of the antique Eastern Gopuram and encroaching on the temple’s structures which are being invaded by modern construction, which is against G.O. Ms. No. 171 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department (M.A.2) Department dated June 29, 2013. According to the aforementioned G.O. 171, a structure that is over a century old is classified as a heritage monument. These architectural icons cannot be intruded upon by any contemporary buildings. It added, “I respectfully submit that G.O. 171 also states that the work undertaken in heritage monuments should be as per Venice Charter.” It codifies internationally accepted standards of conservation practice relating to architecture and sites.
The petitioner contended that an examination of the contested order alone demonstrates that the Minister decided to build stores in front of the historic temple and that this statement, known as announcement No. 223 was made in the Legislative Assembly. The aforementioned Minister lacks the right and jurisdiction to make any such 23 decisions or announcements about the particular use of the assets and funds of a Hindu temple, either under the 1959 Act or the general authorities of the Government. He conveyed, “Any decision taken by a person not having any authority or jurisdiction in the matter would be patently void as held by a catena of judgments of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
According to the petition, the action further infringes on the rights of the devotees. It underlined, “The construction of a shopping complex in the frontage of the temple and in the land belonging to the temple will cause an impediment to the conduct of festivals and celebrations in the temple as per agamas and traditions. Out of 365 days in a year, Tiruvannamalai Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple has festivals for about 240 days. Most of the temple festival processions or conduct start from the place in front of the Eastern Gopuram. Any construction activity there would be completely limiting the space for the devotees of the temple to partake in the festivals that would violate their fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India.”
It asserted that Respondents had started several projects, the majority of which involved civil construction, on the legally unfounded foundation of statements made in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by the Minister for Religious Endowments Department during the HR&CE Department’s budget session. The announcement and construction of extremely unusual and previously unheard-of projects, including swimming pools for elephants, memorials for deceased elephants, cultural centres and senior citizen retirement homes, among others involved the contribution of more than 1000 crores of rupees, which have been progressively accumulated over many years to the temples’ corpus fund. These ostentatious and anti-temple tradition pronouncements drain the funds all at once.
The petitioner countered that no approval has been granted for the construction of shops near Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple by the State Level Expert Committee, which was established in line with the court’s directives in its judgment dated 07.06.2021 in Writ Petition No. 574 of 2015. He expressed, “Nor can it given any such approval even if such a proposal is made to it.”
He charged that the Respondents have intentionally concealed information regarding the plan to build stores in front of the Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple’s Eastern Gopuram and next to the 16-pillared mandapam and committed deliberate contempt of the court and added, “The Respondents are aware that the State Level Expert Committee would not give any approval to such proposals of building modern shops in the temple complex and they have therefore gone ahead with the issuance of the impugned G.O. No. 336 25 and have further called for tenders and have also released the funds of the temple for the illegal constructions.”
Additionally, the petition highlighted that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Committee which conducted the temple’s inspection in May 2017 had compiled a list of 121 papers including estimates and plans detailing the civil works that had been undertaken at the temple. Importantly, it found numerous infractions committed by the HR&CE Department in the temple following an inspection of the premises and its records.
The panel had reported its findings to the court which unveiled, “No record or expert reports of Agama experts/Stahapathy or Archaeologist are available for the civil works carried out in the temple. Puravi Mandapam converted into the Joint Commissioner’s office. Two modern Cottages have been built within the environs of the temple. Toilets have been constructed within the temple. Many new structures have been built in the 4th prakara of the temple.”
It also recommended, “A comprehensive conservation plan covering documentation of all components, historic research of temple, history of evolution, plan application as per agama/Shilpa shastras, detailed condition assessment of built fabric, surveys and tests required to establish dates/use of matching historic material, landscape surveys is essential for record of HR CE and before undertaking any future conservation works for temples of this historicity and scale. Any specifications or future estimates should only be based on studies carried out in such a plan or detailed project report. Conservation experts/archaeologists/ sthapathys need to be involved in the preparation of such a detailed report.”
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE Department for short) was implicated in the egregious structural breaches of this monumental temple that the UNESCO Committee had identified. The infringements remain unaddressed, demonstrating the department’s blatant disregard for the history, antiquity, and agamic principles of ancient temples.
The motion also emphasises that the existence of an Executive Officer of the HR&CE Department at the Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple is only due to a fraudulent interpretation of the statute, rather than any legally legitimate order issued by a competent authority under any of the 1951 Act’s or 1959 Act’s enabling provisions. “It is crystal clear that once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, stillborn, unenforceable and non-est given Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements,” the plea invoked a Supreme Court judgement.
The writ petition implored that it is illegal to build stores on property that is either adjacent to, owned by, or appurtenant to a temple in contravention of Section 77 of the 1959 Act. The very officials under the 1959 Act who should be preventing any such interference are seeking to publicly carry out this substantial violation of the provision at the expense of the temple’s cash and properties.
“The funds for the construction of the shopping complex cannot be obtained from the corpus funds of the Temple since only the purposes for which such a Temple/Religious Institution would be a lawful use of corpus funds. In the event the surplus funds are being used, the same must be by S. 66 of the 1959 Act. Construction of a shopping complex is not one of the purposes for which a surplus fund can be used,” it observed.
It further brought up that “This Hon’ble Court in a landmark judgment in Suo Moto W.P. No. 574 of 2015 dated 07.06.2021 passed a slew of directions, including a specific direction to the Respondent Department to adopt scientific technology for the preservation and conservation of heritage Temples and its properties. The 26 Department in scant regard of the same has issued and acted upon the impugned order.”
The petition reiterated that being an ancient temple, the Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple should be shielded from any threats to its structural integrity and architectural value for future generations. As such, it should not be allowed to build a large shopping complex right at the edge of the temple grounds, as this could hurt these attributes. “The construction of a shopping complex right in front of the temple will mar the aesthetic view of the temple to which devotees are entitled as part of their devotion and their right to have ‘Gopura Darisanam’ unhindered by the incongruous presence of modern constructions.”
It maintained that the development of the shopping centre in the open area in front of the temple, where religious festivals are held and sizable throngs of devotees congregate, would permanently eradicate the religious and cultural customs of the devotees, which involve worshipping the deity during these festivals. “The impugned order was ostensibly issued under an assembly announcement made by the Hon’ble Minister of the Respondent Department, who is no authority under the Act and cannot unilaterally force decisions on religious institutions that are in clear contravention of the law,” it stated.
The petitioner had further requested, “It is just and necessary that certain interim reliefs be granted in this writ petition to secure the safety of the ancient Temple and to protect the interests of the Deity and his devotees, failing with irreparable damage would be caused.” Notably, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department was notified by T R Ramesh to remove encroachments from Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai and to initiate enforcement action against the encroachers. However, his plea was granted following the hearing in the high court.
