Justice K Chandru’s article on the proposed Secretariat complex at Foreshore Estate -- published in DT Next on Sunday -- raises fundamental concerns that extend far beyond aesthetics, urban traffic management, or coastal sentiment.
At its core lies a basic legal question that demands a definitive answer before any further step is taken.
Much of the discussion regarding the proposed Secretariat at Foreshore Estate has understandably centred on traffic flow, congestion, and the impact of a large building on the cityscape.
While these are legitimate concerns, they remain urban planning issues. Roads can be widened, traffic altered, and building designs modified. The primary question is simpler: can the government lawfully build the proposed Secretariat on this designated land?
Justice Chandru draws attention to the 1994 High Court judgment concerning Survey No 4309. In Consumer Action Group v Union of India ((1994) 1 MLJ 481), Justice Kanakaraj permitted only a small memorial on part of the land, while restraining construction of an office complex or commercial complex elsewhere on the survey number and directing that the remaining portion be maintained as low-lying wetland. That order deserves far more attention than it has received so far.
If that High Court order remains operative in those terms, it cannot be treated as a mere environmental suggestion. It is a binding order of the High Court.
Before proceeding with plans for a 15-storey Secretariat on the site, the government should explain what has happened to that judicial order and clarify the legal basis on which it considers the proposed construction permissible.
Justice Chandru also points out that even an annexure to the adjacent official residence of the Chief Justice was reportedly not permitted due to this restraint. While this detail may not single-handedly determine the legal position, it demonstrates how scrupulously the order has been understood and respected over the years.
Other critical questions cannot simply be brushed aside. P Wilson has separately raised the government’s undertaking before the High Court, alongside key questions concerning CRZ-II classification and permissible Floor Space Index (FSI).
These are not matters of political preference; they go directly to the legality and feasibility of the project.
Height restrictions linked to aviation safety also require a clear answer. If the proposed building height falls within an area governed by Airports Authority of India restrictions, necessary clearances must be resolved before construction begins. Statutory compliance cannot become tomorrow’s explanation for yesterday’s decision.
Furthermore, Chennai’s experience with the ocean should not be forgotten. The vulnerability of this coastal stretch to flooding and extreme weather events is a practical consideration, quite apart from legal questions. The tsunami of 2004 remains fresh in living memory.
None of this is an argument against constructing a new Secretariat. Fort St George is crowded, and there may well be a compelling administrative case for moving the Secretariat elsewhere. The concern lies strictly with the choice of this particular site.
There is another viable option available. The Highways Research Station campus at Guindy offers about 35 acres of government-owned land. It is situated inland, connected to major roads, and relatively close to the airport.
If the objective is to create a large and efficient administrative complex, the government should explain why this option was rejected in favour of a coastal site surrounded by questions of judicial restraint, CRZ regulations, FSI limits, airport height restrictions, and flood vulnerability.
An irony exists here. Guindy has the prerequisites a Secretariat needs land and connectivity. Foreshore Estate has something else: the sea.
Yet, it is precisely the presence of the sea that has created so many legal and practical difficulties.
If the government has obtained legal advice that the 1994 order does not stand in the way of the proposed Secretariat, that advice should be made clear. If the order needs to be varied or clarified, the proper course would be to approach the High Court before construction begins. Public money should not be spent first, leaving courts to decide later whether the project could lawfully proceed.
Governments must govern, but they must also obey court orders. The two propositions are not in conflict.
Justice Chandru recalls the Supreme Court’s question in the 1985 Marina Beach litigation: “You came first or they came first?” It remains a pertinent question today.
The State is entitled to build a Secretariat, but it is also entitled to choose a site where the first question is not whether it can lawfully build at all. That is why Guindy deserves another look.
Srimathi Venkatachari is Advocate, Madras High Court