CHENNAI: Coming under fire for non-compliance with earlier directions, the Tamil Nadu government on Thursday informed the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that a majority of idols, which would otherwise have been taken to the Pattinapakkam and Neelankarai points in south Chennai for immersion as part of Vinayagar Chaturthi festivities, are being diverted to the locations identified in north Chennai.
The submission by Additional Advocate General Arun Suresh came up during a hearing on the state’s proposed arrangements for idol immersion, after the tribunal had directed the government to file an affidavit undertaking compliance with earlier orders of the Supreme Court and the high court, besides NGT.
The Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) said six locations had been designated for immersion within Chennai, including Sreenivasapuram at Pattinapakkam and Palkalai Nagar at Neelankarai.
Suresh said completely shutting down the two southern immersion spots at this stage would create several problems. “To have no place for immersion in the south of Chennai would only lead to chaos, not just at the venue, but also along the route,” he submitted.
He said the difficulties included traffic management, deployment of personnel at junctions and crowd management. The issue also had a law-and-order dimension, he added.
According to the state, the revised arrangements were aimed at limiting the number of idols reaching Pattinapakkam and Neelankarai while changing the method of immersion and handling of debris to address pollution concerns.
The bench observed that the issue recurred every year and questioned the state’s reference to the “timeline” as a difficulty, pointing out that there had been nearly a year between successive festivals.
Suresh sought a day more to file the affidavit, saying it required clearances from the authorities concerned and that it had to contain “operable and true to facts” arrangements. He assured the court that the affidavit would be filed on Friday, before the immersion scheduled for September 20.
The court also questioned the state over the regulatory status of the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA), particularly as the disputed coastal locations fall under CRZ-IA/No Development Zone provisions. It asked whether participation of the regulatory authority in government meetings could by itself be treated as permission for activities at such locations.
