Panel to decide on key works in temples

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan on hearing arguments at length from counsels appearing for nearly 13 temples, said “There is a consensus that the best method would be to form a committee as envisaged in our previous order on October 25. All miscellaneous petitions filed by the individual temples will be referred to a committee, which will consist of experts in the field of structural engineering, archaeology, conservation, a sthapathi and two agama experts.” 

Noting that a representative from the HR & CE Department will be the Secretary of the Committee for facilitating its working and for furnishing records, the bench sought the counsels to offer suggestions about the experts to the Court Master following which the committee members will be named on November 7. The bench also held that the Committee would consider repairs and renovations that needed to be carried out in terms of what has already been observed by the Court. It also directed the committee to give priority depending on urgency as some religious ceremonies need to be performed for which there are designated days and added that “We leave it to the committee to adopt its own approach for obtaining necessary inputs.” 

The case pertains to a batch of PILs filed based on complaints of ancient inscriptions being casually removed or replaced with tiles and new constructions coming up abutting heritage temple structures. Instances of ancient structures being pulled down and replaced were also brought to the court’s attention leading to the court appointing former advocate-general of Tamil Nadu P S Raman as amicus curiae and a panel of experts to assist the court in safeguarding the heritage temples. The bench had also directed the Government to utilise the UNESCO’s expertise in renovating heritage structures. But while all these were progressing, as many as 13 temples moved the court insisting that they be allowed to take up certain renovation work as their structures required immediate attention. In fact, the Srirangam temple, which was barred by the High Court from undertaking certain works had moved the Supreme Court, which rejected its plea and instead directed them to approach the High Court for relief.

The Madras High Court has threatened judicial intervention if the Government failed to come out clean on the appointment of former Madurai Kamaraj University vice-chancellor Kalyani Mathivanan, as Chairperson of Tamil Nadu State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (TNSCPCR). First bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan on hearing the Advocate General and the petitioner who appeared in person, said “It is quite obvious that the process has not been followed.  We put to the Advocate General whether he would like to review the issue himself and advise the Government appropriately or it would be necessary for Judicial intervention.” Also, recording the Advocate General’s assurance that he will advise the Government appropriately and holding that “We expect some solution to the position we are facing now,” the bench posted the case for further hearing to December 12. Change India, Director, A Narayanan, who had challenged the appointment of Kalyani alleging that mandatory pre-appointment rules as spelt out by the Delhi High Court had not been adhered to, claimed that the Government submission that as many as nine applications were considered before zeroing down on Kalyani’s candidature was ‘false’.