Bhubaneswar: The ordinance to bring Lingaraj Temple and its eight associated shrines in Bhubaneswar under a special law has run into hurdles.
Since the ordinance covers 12 centrally-protected monuments, including the Lingaraj Temple and three tanks, the Centre is of the opinion that it is outside the “legislative competence” of the state legislature and could lead to conflict with the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). The March 23 letter also pointed out that the state government has already violated the AMASR Act around the shrine by building modern structures.
The governor’s office has forwarded the Home Ministry’s letter to Chief Secretary Suresh Chandra Mohapatra seeking clarifications.
The ordinance, which was promulgated in December 2020, proposed to govern the 11th-century shrine complex by a separate law by forming a 15-member committee with a senior Hindu IAS officer as its administrator on the lines of Jagannath Temple in Puri, which is governed by the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955.
Notably, the Lingaraj Temple is covered under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Act.
Quoting sources, a TOI report said that the state government in November last year had inserted a clause in the ordinance, which stated that provisions of the ordinance would be in consonance with the AMASR Act. Since the new communication questions the legislative competence of the assembly, the matter is being reviewed, the sources added.
CHECK THE LETTER SENT TO GOVERNOR”S OFFICE LAST WEEK
These centrally protected monuments are governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. As per the said Act new constructions are not allowed in prohibited area (100 metre zone from protected monument). Further, 200 metre area beyond prohibited area has been declared as regulated area where permission from competent Authority on recommendation from the National Monuments Authority is required to undertake construction-related activities including repairs. ASI is responsible for the conservation and preservation of these 12 centrally protected monuments. Certain clauses of the ordinance also relate to conservation and repair of the Temples/Tanks. Such conflict is not in the interest of maintaining these centrally protected monuments in their original form for posterity. As such the dual administrative authorities will results into continuous conflict.
