Humayun's Tomb, Sunder Nursery worth visiting today because of renovation work: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that renovation of historical monuments would be necessary at times to preserve the structure and there is nothing wrong in carrying out such work as long as the core characteristics of the structure remains intact [TR Ramesh vs State of Tamil Nadu]..The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra cited the examples of the renovation work by carried out in Sunder Nursery and Humayun's tomb in Delhi which helped preserve those heritage sites."Sometimes the Archaeological Survey has to step in. Humayun Tomb is worth visiting today because of renovation. (Look at) Sunder Nursery etc. If work is done properly, then fine," said Justice Khanna.The remarks were made while hearing a plea by temple rights activist TR Ramesh who raised concerns over construction and renovation work carried out inside some temples in Tamil Nadu by the State's Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department. .When the matter came up for hearing, Justice Khanna noted that sometimes renovation works are needed to preserve heritage structures. The judge went on to observe, "Sometimes alterations are required to make it better.".Ramesh moved the Court challenging the validity of the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964. Ramesh claimed that these rules were being misused by the HR&CE Department to violate, destroy and alter heritage structures, icons, inscriptions, murals, paintings, etc. in temples of Tamil Nadu. He had first moved a public interest litigation (PIL) petition in the matter before the Madras High Court, where he asserted that the 1964 rules were ultra vires the rule-making powers conferred in Section 116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act).He had argued that Sections 116(2) (xvii) and 116(2) (xix)of the HR&CE Act only allowed the framing of rules to safeguard, protect and preserve structures and images in the temples in their original forms. The petitioner had also urged the Court to restrain the Tamil Nau government from carrying out any civil works - including construction, renovation, restoration, conservation, repairs, etc. - inside or near temple premises and temple properties.The petitioner highlighted that there are around 44,000 temples in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the HR&CE Department had a duty to protect, maintain and safeguard these temples.Instead, the petitioner argued that the HR&CE Department was carrying on renovation, alteration and construction works inside temple premises without authority and by exceeding its powers.The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court dismissed this plea. The High Court upheld the 1964 rules in its 2021 judgment, although it suggested that the State delete some unnecessary provisions from the rules h that no longer held relevance. .The Supreme Court today refused to entertain Ramesh's appeal against the High Court judgment, after noting that a challenge to the validity of the 1964 rules could not be sustained only on assumptions that there would be legal violations in the future.