Ancient Monuments Act Does Not Bar Replacing Broken Or Installing Missing Idols In A Living Temple: Madras High Court

The Court quashed the Archaeological Survey of India’s refusal and directed the authorities to replace four damaged Dikpalaka idols and install four missing idols at the Sri Brihadeeswarar Temple, popularly known as the Thanjavur Big Temple.

The Court was hearing three public interest litigation petitions seeking the replacement of damaged Ashta Dikpalaka idols, installation of missing idols and reopening of the Lord Indra shrine at the protected monument.

A Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel observed: “It was pointed out during the initial days of argument that these idols can never be either replaced or installed owing to Section 6 (2) (c) (iii) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, … However, the reliefs sought in the writ petition are not to destroy or remove or alter or deface the Idols. It is only to install the idols which are missing and to replace the idols which are broken. The broken idols can very well be again preserved by the Archaeological Society of India.”

The Bench added: “In the instant case, since the monument is preserved by the Archaeological Survey of India, they can retain possession of the broken idols. However, since the temple is a sacred living temple, broken idols can never and should never be permitted to remain in their shrines. The shrines can never be permitted to remain without a Deity. On both counts, very unfortunately, the sanctity of the Temple continues to suffer. This situation should no longer exist. It should be addressed and redressed with due reverence.”

Advocate B. Muruganandam appeared for the petitioners. Senior Central Government Standing Counsel M. Karthigeyavenkidachalapathy appeared for the respondents.

Background

The Sri Brihadeeswarar Temple was constructed by King Raja Raja Chola I more than 1,000 years ago. The Court recorded that it is a protected monument under the control of the Archaeological Survey of India, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a living temple where daily poojas continue to be performed.

Separate shrines were constructed for the eight Dikpalakas, the guardian deities associated with the cardinal and intermediate directions. Over time, some of the idols went missing, while others became damaged.

A joint inspection conducted by representatives of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the Archaeological Survey of India and the Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam found that the idols of Indiran, Yaman, Nirriti and Kuberan were missing. The idols of Agni, Varunan, Vayu and Esanar were damaged.

The Archaeological Survey of India had refused a request for replacement and installation on the ground that it was impermissible under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and the corresponding rules. The devotees consequently approached the High Court.

The Court also considered an agreement entered into between the hereditary trustee of the Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam and the then Governor General in Council for the maintenance and preservation of the temple. The agreement prohibited destruction, removal, alteration or defacement of the monument but expressly allowed the monument to continue being used for religious worship.

Court’s Observations

The Court rejected the District Collector’s statement that the earlier agreement concerning the temple had ceased to operate. It held that Section 39 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 saved acts undertaken under the earlier legislation.

It observed: “The District Collector stated that the agreement referred supra ceased to be in existence. That statement is not correct, since Section 39 of the Act extracted above saves things already done, and this savings clause protects the agreement entered into on 28.02.1946.”

The Court also referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which protects rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities acquired under a repealed enactment unless a contrary intention appears. It consequently found that the earlier agreement and the rights flowing from it continued to operate.

The agreement authorised the Archaeological Department to determine and undertake repairs after consulting the hereditary trustee. It simultaneously preserved the temple’s continued use for religious worship and observances.

The Court noted that Section 6(2)(c)(iii) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 concerns restrictions upon destroying, removing, altering or defacing a protected monument. The relief sought by the petitioners did not involve any of those acts, but was confined to replacing damaged idols and installing missing deities.

The Court found that the damaged original idols could remain in the Archaeological Survey of India’s possession for preservation. However, the shrines in a living temple could not be left empty or continue to contain damaged idols.

It observed: “The Gods, who guard the directions have been left astray, neglected, forgotten, damaged, ignored and missing. This does not bode well for the temple. A vacuum, an emptiness remains. That fact having been identified should be rectified and addressed. The presiding Deities of the eight directions should be installed in their rightful and lawful places.”

The fact that the temple bell had already been replaced was also considered relevant. The Court found no reason why the damaged and missing Dikpalaka idols could not similarly be replaced or installed.

The Court referred to Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which concerns the protection of places of worship from misuse, pollution or desecration.

It observed: “The Act casts a responsibility on the District Collector with the duty to protect a place of worship from misuse, pollution or desecration. Section 16 of the Act very clearly states that when the Central Government has acquired a protected monument, such monument should be preserved and protected by the District Collector. Under Section 16 (2) (b) of the Act, the Collector must preserve the monument by taking such other action as he may think necessary in this behalf.”

The District Collector had therefore been impleaded by the Court and directed to participate in resolving the condition of the shrines.

The Court held that the idols should be restored to their respective shrines with due regard to both the religious character of the temple and its archaeological protection.

It observed: “We are of the firm view that the deities should be installed /replaced with due reverence in accordance with the agama principles and in consultation with experts and Sthapathis. The glory of the temple would resonate only then and never till then.”

The Court noted that the temple’s Sthapathi had previously opined that the damaged idols should be replaced and the missing idol should be installed. It permitted the authorities to obtain fresh opinions from experts, Pandits and Sthapathis regarding implementation.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Archaeological Survey of India’s refusal to permit the replacement and installation.

The District Collector, the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the hereditary trustee of the Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam and the Assistant Superintending Archaeologist were directed to act jointly.

They were directed to replace the damaged idols of Agni, Varunan, Vayu and Esanar and install the missing idols of Indiran, Yaman, Nirriti and Kuberan in their respective shrines.

The authorities were required to commence preliminary work within three months and complete the replacement and installation within 12 months. No order was passed as to costs.

Cause Title: K. Kaliyamoorthy v. Union of India & Others

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates B. Muruganandam and R. Alagumani; K. Chinraj, Party-In-Person

Respondents: Senior Central Government Standing Counsel M. Karthigeyavenkidachalapathy; Government Advocate K.K. Udayakumar; Counsel for State (Criminal Side) I. Murugesan; Standing Counsel V. Chandrasekar

Click here to read/download Judgment