The Madras High Court today declined to reignite the moral debate concerning whether or not former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa should be given a Memorial..Petitions filed opposing the construction of Jayalalithaa’s Memorial along the Marina Beach coast in Chennai came up for hearing today before the Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice PT Asha..Even as the counsel began his arguments on the matter, Chief Justice Banerjee emphasised that the Court would not entertain moral arguments against the Memorial’s construction, orally remarking,.“We are not moral guardians.”.CJ Banerjee pointed out that on the moral side of things, this case would be governed by the Court’s earlier ruling on the issue of hanging Jayalalithaa’s portrait in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly..A case brought against the Speaker’s decision to place the late Chief Minister’s portrait in the Assembly was dismissed last February on similar grounds..In line with this decision, the CJ noted that the question of whose memorial should or should not be built are decisions to be taken by the government elected into power by the voters..She reiterated that the Court cannot interfere in such matters in the absence of legal violations. Emphasising the difference between a moral wrong and a legal wrong, she remarked,.“What is a moral wrong may not be a legal wrong…I may think it is morally wrong – can I interfere judicially?”.Similarly, she pointed out that the Court cannot intervene, even if her personal views were to align with those of the petitioner in some respects..Commenting on the beauty of the Marina Beach area, she admitted that personally, she preferred that the area be left untouched and that there be no construction obstructing the view..However, she went on to observe,.“But when I decide judicially, I cannot go by my personal views….…I may personally agree with you so far as all memorials are concerned. But there is a difference between my personal opinion and my judicial opinion… Where there is an illegality [unclear]…then this court can definitely interfere.”.The petitioners have submitted that the construction of the Memorial involves violations of the Coastal Zone Regulations. In this context, they have raised environmental and public safety concerns..To the contrary, Advocate General Vijay Narayan contended that the construction has been sanctioned by all the competent authorities after following applicable norms..Pointing out that the petitioners have to prove that such illegalities are involved, the Court has posted the matter for further hearing on June 25.
The Madras High Court today declined to reignite the moral debate concerning whether or not former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa should be given a Memorial..Petitions filed opposing the construction of Jayalalithaa’s Memorial along the Marina Beach coast in Chennai came up for hearing today before the Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice PT Asha..Even as the counsel began his arguments on the matter, Chief Justice Banerjee emphasised that the Court would not entertain moral arguments against the Memorial’s construction, orally remarking,.“We are not moral guardians.”.CJ Banerjee pointed out that on the moral side of things, this case would be governed by the Court’s earlier ruling on the issue of hanging Jayalalithaa’s portrait in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly..A case brought against the Speaker’s decision to place the late Chief Minister’s portrait in the Assembly was dismissed last February on similar grounds..In line with this decision, the CJ noted that the question of whose memorial should or should not be built are decisions to be taken by the government elected into power by the voters..She reiterated that the Court cannot interfere in such matters in the absence of legal violations. Emphasising the difference between a moral wrong and a legal wrong, she remarked,.“What is a moral wrong may not be a legal wrong…I may think it is morally wrong – can I interfere judicially?”.Similarly, she pointed out that the Court cannot intervene, even if her personal views were to align with those of the petitioner in some respects..Commenting on the beauty of the Marina Beach area, she admitted that personally, she preferred that the area be left untouched and that there be no construction obstructing the view..However, she went on to observe,.“But when I decide judicially, I cannot go by my personal views….…I may personally agree with you so far as all memorials are concerned. But there is a difference between my personal opinion and my judicial opinion… Where there is an illegality [unclear]…then this court can definitely interfere.”.The petitioners have submitted that the construction of the Memorial involves violations of the Coastal Zone Regulations. In this context, they have raised environmental and public safety concerns..To the contrary, Advocate General Vijay Narayan contended that the construction has been sanctioned by all the competent authorities after following applicable norms..Pointing out that the petitioners have to prove that such illegalities are involved, the Court has posted the matter for further hearing on June 25.
