National

ETV Bharat / bharat

SC dismisses plea alleging illegal construction at Puri's Jagannath temple

The PIL had challenged the Odisha High Court's order, which had allowed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to assess if there would be any damage due to construction by the state and consequently had allowed construction.

The PIL had challenged the Odisha High Court's order which had allowed the Archaeological Survey of India(ASI) to assess if there would be any damage due to construction by the state and consequently had allowed construction
SC dismisses plea alleging illegal excavation, construction at Puris Jagannath temple

By

Published : Jun 3, 2022, 1:42 PM IST

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the construction activities being carried out by the Odisha government in the area of Jagannath Puri temple as part of the Puri Heritage Corridor Project, saying that it had no merits. The vacation bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli said that they highly deprecate the practice of filing such frivolous petitions as it wastes a lot of time of the judiciary. "It needs to be nipped in bud so that development work is not stalled," said the court. The top court further said that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) other than being in the public interest is detrimental to the public interest. The PIL had challenged the Odisha High Court's order which had allowed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to assess if there would be any damage due to construction by the state and consequently had allowed construction.

Also read:Subramanian Swamy to discuss Jagannath temple project with Odisha CM

According to the petition, state agencies have been working in gross violation of Section 20A of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The petitioner had argued that the High Court was wrong in doing so and the construction is causing cracks in the temple. However, the top court rejected the claims of the petitioners. "Can the state be denied to make necessary arrangements to provide basic facilities to devotees? The answer is emphatic no," held the court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

...view details