The State Government on Monday preferred a review application urging the Madras High Court to modify, clarify or reconsider 32 out of the 75 directions it had issued on June 7 on a batch of cases, including a suo motu public interest litigation petition it had taken up in 2015 to preserve the architectural heritage of the State.
Appearing before a special Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and P.D. Audikesavalu, which was constituted to hear temple-related cases, Advocate General (A-G) R. Shunmugasundaram said 70 of the 75 directions were related to the State Government and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, and the rest were related to other authorities.
Of the 70 directions, the HR&CE Department had begun implementing 38. There were certain problems in implementing the rest, the A-G said, and insisted on modifying a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to declare all temples, chariots, jewellery, art, artefacts and sacred groves that were over 100 years old as national monuments. He said nearly 10,000 temples were over 100 years old, and most cities and towns had developed around them. “Social and economic life of people mostly depends on such temples. If temples are declared as monuments by ASI, the area extending to a distance of 100 metres in all directions shall be declared as prohibited area.
Serious implication
“No commercial or construction activities will be allowed in the restricted area. Hence, declaration of temple as ‘monument’ will have serious implication on the social life of the public,” he said, and urged the court to modify the direction. He also said it would not be possible to comply with the direction to let out temple lands to poor farmers for cultivation.
Pointing out that the lands were leased out through public auction, the government said it would not be possible to lease out the lands to ‘poor farmers’ if they do not participate in the auction or quote the highest price.
The A-G said the salaries of temple staff, including Archakas and Oduvars, could not be fixed as per the Minimun Wages Act since they would not fall under the definition of ‘workmen’ under the Act. He also sought a change in the direction to constitute a 17-member Heritage Commission to identify, preserve, conserve or restore heritage buildings.
He said the commission should not consist of more than 16 members, as per the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act of 2012 and, therefore, that particular direction required modification. It was also brought to the notice of the court that though the Act was passed in 2012, the statutory rules under it were yet to be framed.
