Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice S. Sounthar directed the State Government to constitute the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission within four weeks under the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012. The Court issued the direction while dealing with petitions concerning unauthorized construction and development works inside and around the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai. It ordered that no further construction or civil activity be carried out within or outside the temple premises except those specifically permitted by the Bench. The judges observed that the government must promptly implement statutory measures to ensure protection and regulation of heritage structures across the State.

The case arose from petitions challenging the State Government’s order permitting construction and development activities within and around the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple at Tiruvannamalai. The petitioners contended that extensive construction was being carried out by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department and temple authorities in the temple’s fourth and fifth pragarams without adequate approvals, threatening the structural and heritage integrity of the ancient temple. They sought judicial intervention to halt such works and questioned the diversion and use of temple funds and properties for these purposes.

Also Read: Supreme Court: For a Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) under Mohammedan Law, Proof of Public Possession Is Essential; Absence of Mutation Raises Doubt over Ownership Claims

The respondents, comprising officials of the Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, Revenue Department, HR&CE Department, and temple management, submitted that the constructions were intended to improve facilities for devotees, including a queue complex and waiting halls. They stated that necessary justifications and reports were being prepared and that works were aimed at accommodating large pilgrim gatherings, particularly during festivals such as Karthigai Deepam.

The Court, after examining photographs and submissions, recorded that certain structures were being erected adjacent to the temple’s heritage walls with minimal spacing. Observing the potential adverse impact on the monument’s aesthetic and heritage value, the Bench directed the temple authorities to file a detailed justification and technical report with supporting documents, including budgetary allocations and approvals obtained from competent authorities.

Following an inspection of the temple premises by the Bench, it was found that large-scale constructions were underway within the fourth pragaram and on surrounding land. The Court ordered suspension of all ongoing and proposed works except those expressly permitted, such as specific repair and lighting activities. During the proceedings, reference was made to the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, noting that although the Act had come into force, the Heritage Commission contemplated under Section 3 had not yet been constituted. The Court directed the State to establish the Commission within four weeks to ensure statutory protection of heritage structures.

The Bench stated in its previous order that “no part of the Heritage Temple shall be exploited the way in which the HR & CE Department proposes to make the construction, that too, inside the Temple, particularly, in the fourth Pragaram at the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukoil, Tiruvannamalai.” The judges recorded their dissatisfaction after observing the constructions firsthand, noting that “we were shocked to note that some huge constructions are being made inside the Temple, especially in the fourth Pragaram.”

The Court found the justification insufficient for constructing a massive queue complex and stated that the necessity and proportionality of the structure required further evaluation. It also took cognizance of an affidavit filed by the temple’s Joint Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, which stated that all works had been stopped following the Court’s earlier directions. The affidavit detailed various projects within and around the temple, including works related to façade lighting, waiting halls, prasadam stalls, mandapam renovations, and public facilities.

The Bench remarked that “further construction in respect of the main Temple Annadhanakudam shall not be undertaken” and required detailed justifications before granting permission for additional works.

In reviewing outer constructions, the Bench permitted continuation of works on the northern side, specifically between the northwestern corner and Ammanaiamman Temple Tower, but prohibited works along the western wall between Pei Gopuram and the northwestern corner. Similarly, it withheld approval for the Elephant Memorial Mandapam located on Vada Othavadai Street, citing the need to verify requisite permissions.

The judges recorded that “so far, no Heritage Commission under Section 3 of the Heritage Commission Act has been constituted,” and observed that this statutory lapse undermined the preservation and supervision of heritage sites not covered by central or state archaeological enactments.

The Bench held the objective of the Heritage Commission Act, noting that it was intended “to protect the buildings or premises not covered under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the Tamil Nadu Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966.” It further stated that the Act’s purpose was to ensure “identification, restoration and preservation of heritage buildings and in matters relating to development and engineering operations which are likely to affect any heritage buildings.”

The Court expressed concern that despite the Act being operational for over a year and a half, the State had failed to act. It recorded that “since no action has been initiated on the part of the State Government in constituting the Commission, it became imminent that the State Government must come forward immediately to constitute such Commission at the earliest.”

Also Read: Husband Cannot Use Child as Pawn to Prove Alleged Infidelity: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea for DNA Test

The Bench ordered that the Commission should be formed “within the meaning of Section 3 of the Heritage Commission Act, consisting Members as per the composition in Section 4 of the said Act at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The Court required the State to file a compliance report upon completion.

“Except the works which are specifically permitted under this order, no other construction works or developmental activities, by way of civil constructions etc., shall be undertaken by the Temple Authorities or the HR & CE Department, either within or outside the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukoil, Tiruvannamalai, until further orders.” The Court fixed 23 October 2025 as the next date for the respondents to file the justification and technical reports, as well as other supporting materials.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Maruthachalamurthy
For the Respondents: Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader; Mr. A. Selvendran, Special Government Pleader

Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department & Ors., and T.R. Ramesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.Nos.34810 of 2023 & 11240 of 2024

Bench: Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice S. Sounthar