Karnataka HC upholds constitutional validity of law on ‘prohibited’ and ‘regulated’ areas around ancient monuments
The court ruled that the restrictions imposed through Sections 20A, 20B, and 20C in “prohibited” and “regulated” areas, which extend up to a 200-metre radius from the protected monuments, are constitutionally valid and do not infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights.
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the (AMASR Act), specifically its 2010 amendment. This amendment prohibits new constructions within a 100-metre radius of protected monuments and regulates them up to 200 metres, applying retrospectively. The court ruled that these restrictions do not violate fundamental rights and are a valid exercise of regulatory power to protect cultural heritage.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This judgment centers on the balance between individual property rights and the state's duty to protect heritage. The court examined whether the classifications of 'prohibited' (100m) and 'regulated' (200m) areas under the violate the Right to Equality under . The court applied the test of intelligible differentia (a reasonable classification) and found a rational nexus between these restrictions and the objective of preserving monuments. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the restrictions, without compensation, amounted to expropriation, violating the right to property under . The court rejected this, clarifying that the Act is regulatory in nature, restricting usage without depriving the owner of the title, and thus does not mandate compensation under its framework. The ruling reinforces the principle that personal inconvenience does not render a statute constitutionally infirm if the public interest is served.
Governance
The judgment highlights the mandate placed on the state by the . Specifically, the court noted that the restrictions under the are aligned with , which directs the state to protect every monument or place of artistic or historic interest of national importance from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal, or export. This provides a strong constitutional backing for the (ASI) to enforce stringent buffer zones. However, the court also ordered a fresh survey to determine the exact distance of the petitioner's property from the Madhugiri Fort, emphasizing the need for administrative accountability and precise execution of the law. This underscores that while the state has broad regulatory powers, their application in individual cases must be based on clear, scientifically verifiable data rather than arbitrary measurements.
Historical
The protection of ancient monuments is a crucial aspect of preserving India's rich cultural heritage. The is the primary legislation governing this. The 2010 amendment was introduced because the original Act was found inadequate to address the rapid urbanization and encroachment threatening monuments. By creating strict 'prohibited' and 'regulated' zones (Sections 20A, 20B, and 20C), the law aims to prevent physical damage to structures, preserve the visual aesthetics of the site, and allow for potential future archaeological excavations. The retrospective application of these rules, as upheld by the court, indicates the urgent and overriding priority given to heritage conservation over subsequent developments that might compromise the integrity of sites like the Madhugiri Fort, a protected monument under the .