Bombay High Court Rebukes ASI Over Nagpur's Historic Old High Court Building Conservation Delays
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a stern rebuke to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for its persistent delays in conserving the historic Old High Court building in Nagpur. The court firmly rejected the ASI's reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic as justification for the inaction and issued a clear warning that accountability will be fixed for the prolonged neglect of this significant heritage structure.
Court Expresses Strong Displeasure Over Continued Inaction
Hearing a suo motu petition along with another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by former district bar association secretary Manoj Sable through counsel Shreerang Bhandarkar, a division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode expressed strong displeasure at the continued administrative apathy. The petitions highlighted the deteriorating condition of the heritage building, which has been a matter of judicial concern for years.
The court noted that in its affidavit, the ASI cited the pandemic as the primary reason for failing to complete restoration work within the six-month deadline granted earlier. However, the bench dismissed this explanation with pointed observations.
Pattern of Administrative Apathy and Previous Collapse
The court recalled a troubling precedent where a portion of the historic building had collapsed earlier and was reconstructed only after judicial intervention. This episode underscored what the bench described as a persistent pattern of administrative apathy toward heritage conservation.
Despite that previous incident, which should have served as a wake-up call, the expected seriousness in preserving the heritage structure remained conspicuously absent, the bench observed. The lack of progress has raised serious questions about institutional commitment to protecting India's architectural legacy.
ASI's Defense and Court's Firm Response
During the hearing, ASI representatives submitted that completing the entire restoration within six months was not feasible given the complexity of heritage conservation work. However, the court found this justification inadequate in light of the prolonged delay spanning multiple years and the building's historical significance.
The bench has directed the ASI to place on record the names of officials responsible for the delay, indicating that disciplinary action could follow if their performance is found unsatisfactory. This move signals the court's determination to ensure accountability at individual levels within the organization.
Legal Proceedings and Next Hearing
Ashutosh Dharmadhikari assisted the court as amicus curiae in the matter, while Mugdha Chandurkar represented the Union government during the proceedings. The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 6, 2025, when further developments in the conservation efforts are expected to be reviewed.
The Bombay High Court's intervention highlights the critical role of judicial oversight in protecting India's architectural heritage when administrative bodies fail to fulfill their conservation mandates. The case serves as a significant precedent for heritage preservation efforts across the country.
