Madras High Court Directs State To Constitute TN Heritage Commission Within 4 Weeks, Restrains Construction In Tiruvannamalai Temple

“In that view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu, that is the Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, that is the first respondent herein, to take all endeavour to constitute a Commission called the “Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Heritage Commission Act, consisting Members as per the composition in Section 4 of the said Act at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the compliance to that effect also shall be filed before this Court on completion or immediately after completion of the compliance of the directions,” the court said.

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar remarked that even though one and half years had passed since the passing of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, no action had been initiated by the State to constitute the commission, which was necessary to give advice with respect to development, restoration, preservation, etc of huge buildings, including temples and temple related structures.

“Though one and a half years have gone after the Act came into force, since no action has been initiated on the part of the State Government in constituting the Commission, whereby, very many huge buildings which are referable to this Commission for getting advice for the development, restoration, preservation, etc. of such huge buildings, which includes Temples and Temple related structures, it became imminent that the State Government must come forward immediately to constitute such Commission at the earliest,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea regarding alleged illegal constructions at the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukoil, Tiruvannamalai. In the previous hearing, the court had noted that some 'pakka' constructions with concrete pillars and beams were being made adjacent to the temple, and the distance between the construction and the temple was very minimal. The court had remarked that the archaeological importance and aesthetic beauty of the temple would be diminished if the construction were permitted to go on.

Since a lot of claims and counterclaims had been made in the case, the court had also decided to personally inspect the temple premises to ascertain the exact position. Following this, thejudges had also inspected the temple personally on October 5, 2025.

The court remarked that it was shocked to see that some huge constructions were being made inside the temple. Though the temple authorities justified this construction and said that it was for the proposed queue complex for devotees, the court wondered why such a huge building was being constructed for the same. The authorities told the court that they would submit a justification report for the same.

The court also went through the report submitted by the authorities with respect to the constructions and analysed the same. The court permitted some construction activities with respect to providing façade lighting for the Gopurams and Rajagopurams in all four directions. The court, however, refused to permit any other construction.

During the hearing, the court was also informed that though the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act has been brought into effect from March 1, 2024, the provisions of the Act have not been given effect to.

The court noted that the object of the Act itself was to constitute a Statutory Authority to advice in the matters relating to identification, restoration and preservation of the heritage buildings and in matters relating to the development and engineering operations which was likely to affect any heritage buildings. Noting that the object of the Act itself was to protect the heritage buildings, the court questioned why the State had not constituted the building yet.

Thus, the court directed the State to constitute the commission within 4 weeks.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. R. Maruthachalamurthy, Mr.T.R.Ramesh

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. NRR.Arun Natarajan Spl. Government Pleader, Mr.A.Selvendran Spl. Government Pleader

Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary to the Government and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 346

Case No: W.P.Nos.34810 of 2023 & 11240 of 2024