The Supreme Court on Friday backed the Naveen Patnaik-led Odisha government’s initiative under the ₹800 crore 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 "unauthorised and illegal constructions".
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 heritage site.
Dismissing the claims in the petition, a Vacation Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli held in a judgment that the redevelopment work is in public interest for the benefit of pilgrims. The State government and the Archaeological Survey of India are working in tandem, and both recognise the potential of the Jagannath temple as a world heritage site, the court observed.
The work being done is “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-metre corridor around the Meghanada Prachira, the outer wall of the temple, to avoid any risk of stampedes during the annual chariot festival.
The court said the State government, through the Advocate General of Odisha, had already given a statement in the State High Court that no archaeological remains had been either disturbed or destroyed during the redevelopment work.
Dismissing the petition filed by a Bhubaneshwar resident Ardhendu Kumar Das for lack of “substance” and imposing costs of ₹1 lakh to be paid to the Odisha government, the Bench noted that such petitions which “stall” development work should be “nipped in the bud”.
“Public interest litigation other than in public interest is detrimental to the public interest at large. In the recent past, we have seen a mushrooming growth of PILs… Petitions are either public interest litigation or personal interest litigation. A highly derogatory practice of filing frivolous petitions encroach on valuable judicial time which can otherwise be utilised for addressing genuine concerns,” Justice Gavai read out from the order.
On Thursday, senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani and advocate Tomy Chacko, for the petitioner, had argued that 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. Ms. Pavani had said there was a complete embargo on construction in the prohibited area. She said 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.
Countering, the Advocate General of Odisha had submitted that the prohibition on 'construction' did not include repair, renovation, cleaning of drainage works or building of toilets for pilgrims.
