HC on memorials: Is there any space on Marina beach?

HC on memorials: Is there any space on Marina beach?

Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com

Chennai:  05.02.2021

“How many more memorials will you (government) keep creating for leaders,” asked the Madras high court, wondering whether there was any more space available on the Marina beach for memorials.

There can be only one Gandhi, one Nehru and one Patel. You can’t keep creating memorials for every other leader, the first bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said on Thursday.

“We do not mean any disrespect, but for successive chief ministers you cannot have this… you can have one Gandhi, maybe one Nehru, since he was the first, one Patel but if you keep extending it you would have memorials for deputy chief ministers also... This personality cult is not something that is great for a republic or espoused in the Constitution,” the bench said. The bench made the observations while hearing a plea moved by J Deepak, legal heir of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa, challenging the validity of Tamil Nadu government’s order converting Jayalalithaa’s Poes Garden residence into a memorial.

Responding to the observation, advocate-general Vijay Narayan said, such matters are policy decision of the government.

To this, the bench wondered as to how long the government is going to continue building memorials out of all these places. “Have you almost exhausted the Marina?” the judges said.

Answering the court, the AG said, it is not unusual as several states erect memorials for former chief ministers. In Tamil Nadu alone there are 17 memorials for freedom fighters, former chief ministers and persons who have contributed greatly to the welfare of the state.

The AG also stressed that Jayalalithaa too has contributed immensely to the welfare of the state and the women. Unconvinced, the bench said, “When policy (of the government) goes to the absurd, that is where we come in.”

The court then recorded the submissions of the advocate-general and the counsel for the petitioner and directed the state to file a counter in four weeks.

The bench also observed that they would wait for the order on the challenge made to the land acquisition proceedings (pending before a single judge) before dealing with the present petition.