Puri Parikrama Case: What Exactly Has SC Said

New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) order on Friday on the Srimandir Parikrama Project in Odisha’s Puri, in which it rejected two petitions challenging the excavation and construction being undertaken by the Odisha government along the Jagannath Temple, has come as a big relief for the Naveen Patnaik-led BJD government in the state.

The SC termed the pleas as “frivolous” and imposed penalty of Rs 1 lakh each on both petitioners.

“It’s amply clear that the construction activities which are being undertaken, are being undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued by a three-judge bench of this court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi. The construction is being carried out for the purpose of providing basic and essential amenities like toilets for men and women, cloak rooms, electricity rooms etc. These are the basic facilities which are necessary for the convenience of the devotees at large,” the bench of Justices B R Gavai and Hima Kohli, which reserved its verdict in the case on Thursday, observed.

“The legislative intent appears to be clear. The legislature has deliberately excluded four categories from the definition of ‘construction’. The purpose behind it appears to be that the repairs and renovation of the buildings which are existing and the constructions which are necessary for providing basic facilities like drainage, toilets, water supply and distribution of electricity should be kept out of the riguor of requirement of statutory permissions,” the bench observed.

On petitioner’s lawyer Vinay Navare’s argument that only an individual can be allowed to construct toilets on the prohibited area but the state cannot, the bench observed, “An argument was sought to be advanced by Navare that the said provision is only to enable a person who resides in the prohibited area to get his existing structure re-constructed, repaired and renovated and the said provision cannot come to the aid of the state to create facilities for the public. Such an argument is taken note of only to be rejected,” Justice Gavai and Justice Kohli observed.

“If an individual person can construct a toilet in a prohibited area, can the state be denied to do so when the state finds it necessary to do it in the larger public interest…? The answer is an emphatic ‘no’,” the bench observed.

“A hue and cry was made that the construction carried out is contrary to the inspection report carried out by the ASI. However, the note of the Director General of ASI dated February 21, 2022, as well as the affidavit filed by the ASI before the High Court would falsify this position,” it said.

“The High Court itself has recorded the statement of the Advocate General of Odisha that both the ASI and the state government would work together to ensure that no archaeological remains are missed out or damaged,” it further observed.

“It could thus be seen that even if the appellants had any genuine concern, the same is already taken care of in the impugned order,” it said.

The SC also pulled up the petitioners.

“The matter was mentioned for obtaining urgent orders before the vacation bench on Monday, ie May 30. Since the matter was not listed on Tuesday, ie May 31, it was again mentioned on the said date. Again, a hue and cry was made as if heavens are going to fall if the petitions were not listed,” the SC bench said.

“We are of the considered view that the public interest litigation filed before the High Court rather than being in public interest, is detrimental to the public interest at large,” the bench observed.

“In the recent past, it is noticed that there is a mushroom growth of public interest litigations. However, in many of such petitions, there is no public interest involved at all. The petitions are either publicity interest litigations or personal interest litigation. We highly deprecate practice of filing such frivolous petitions,” it observed while dismissing the pleas and imposing fines of Rs 1 lakh each on the petitioners.