SC Order On Srimandir Parikrama: Aparajita Continues Her Attack On Pinaki Misra; Know Why

Bhubaneswar: A day after the Supreme Court (SC) rejected two petitions challenging the Srimandir Parikrama project in Odisha’s Puri and Puri MP Pinaki Misra said that “Lord Jagannath has spoken through the voice of the apex court”, BJP’s Bhubaneswar MP Aparajita Sarangi on Saturday continued her attack on Misra.

Aparajita, one of the most strident opponents of the Srimandir Parikrama project, has attacked Misra, who represented the state government in the case, on several occasions in the past over the issue.

Addressing a press conference on Saturday, she said, “Misra submitted that the state government acquired buildings constructed as lodges decades ago in the vicinity of the temple, for which it paid Rs 700 crore in compensation to the people who were displaced. He submitted that the entire area surrounding the temple was acquired through negotiations without resorting to provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. He submitted that these buildings were owned by sevayats, who are supporting the project.”

“It seems like a case of telling half-truths and conveniently forgetting to mention that mathas like Emaar Matha built by Saint Ramanuj with a lot of ancient monuments within its precinct and Changu Matha built by Saint Nanak Dev etc. were also razed,” she said.

On state Advocate General Ashok kumar Parija’s submission before the SC that the National Monuments Authority (NMA) had granted NOC (no objection certificate) for the construction being carried out, Aparajita reiterated her earlier stand that the NMA has not given any NOC and the letter conveying “no objection” was a “conditional one” and the state government has not fulfilled those conditions. As the top law official of the state, he must be aware of the difference between “NMA approval” and “conditional no objection”, she said.

On the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)’s submission before the SC that it has no objection to construction being carried out strictly in conformity with the provisions of law, she said, “It is not very clear whether the works are being carried out strictly in conformity with the provisions of law. The requirement of having a Heritage Impact Assessment, prior survey through ground penetrating radar, etc., have not been done and it is public knowledge. Constructions were carried out without prior approval of the ASI. Hence, the people of Odisha need to be conveyed whether the activities were carried out in strict conformity with law.”

She said the SC order was a victory for those concerned with the safety and security of the Jagannath Temple and clearly defines the boundary within which the state government will have to undertake the project.

The MP said it was not very clear to her why the petitioners approached the SC as the matter was being examined in detail by the Orissa High Court.

According to her, the judgment has exposed the lie of the state government that it did not violate the AMSAR Act, 1958. “They have admitted before the High Court and the Supreme Court that they are moving the Reception Centre (designed as a 14-m-tall building) beyond the ‘prohibited area’ of the temple,” she said.

“The SC has clearly said that public amenities such as toilets, cloakroom, electricity line and drainage can only be built. It’s also very clear after the judgment that, henceforth, work will have to be done in coordination with the ASI,” she said.

On the state government’s submission before the SC that it had paid Rs 700 crore compensation to people displaced by the project, Aparajita said that the names of beneficiaries, amount received by them and how the compensation was calculated should be made public.

The MP said she hoped that the state government will not selectively implement the SC order and that it should not delay appointing a full-time administrator of the Jagannath Temple.

Rejecting two petitions challenging the excavation and construction being undertaken by the Odisha government along the Jagannath Temple, the SC on Friday observed, “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, cloakrooms, electricity rooms etc. These are the basic facilities which are necessary for the convenience of the devotees at large.”

“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,” Justice Gavai and Justice Kohli observed.

“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.

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