BHUBANESWAR: Even as the State Government assured to leave temples inside mutts and Mahanta Gadis untouched during the ongoing demolition drive, heritage researchers claimed that razing old heritage structures and places of worship is illegal as these are protected under a Central Act enacted in 1991.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 states that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue to be what it was on August 15, 1947. The Act also bars conversion of places of worship, which are defined as a temple, mosque, gurdwara, church, and monastery.
Stating that demolition of heritage structures is a breach of UNESCO convention adopted in 1972 to which India remains a signatory, researcher Prasanta Kumar Padhi said the Central Act clearly indicates that places of worship cannot be converted in any manner.
“It also leaves little scope for the administration to go for the beautification of such places or structures which can only be conserved and protected. Offences under the Act are punishable with a jail term which may extend up to three years as well as a fine,” he said.
Preservation of heritage is a duty imposed by the Constitution of India under Article 51 A. The Constitution has also provided for protection of monuments under Article 49 which reads: “It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interests, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.”
The Chennai-based Indic Collective trust, which had moved the Supreme Court, claimed that structures of historical significance are protected according to the International Charter for Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), known as the Venice Charter of 1964.
“As per Article 1 of the Charter, the concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which the evidence of a particular civilisation, a significant development or a historic event is found. Further, as per Article 4 of the Charter, it is essential to the conservation of monuments that they are maintained on a permanent basis,” the petitioner stated. Meanwhile, Padhi raised concern over the use of modern tiles on the thoroughfare which serves as an incongruous intervention.
“Anything to be built in and around such heritage structures should be congruous,” he added.