The Madras High Court recently observed that the State cannot insist that an individual needs to get permission to erect a war memorial on private patta land, particularly when the Court has earlier ruled that no such permission was needed to install a pillar in memory of UAPA-accused activist late Stan Swamy on similar land [Siva Kalaimani Ambalam Vs District Collector].

Justice GR Swaminathan also observed that while Stan Swamy was seen as a tribal rights activist, the fact remains that he was an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

"It is true that Stan Swamy is seen as a fighter for tribal rights by sections of society. But the fact remains that he was an accused in a case arising under UAPA. He died in prison," the Court said.

It made the observation while allowing a plea challenging the Natham Tahsildar's order rejecting permission to erect a memorial symbol (stupa) on patta land in Dindigul district, to commemorate the 1755 Natham Kanavai battle.

The judge recounted that in another case, Piyush Sethia vs The District Collector, the High Court had quashed a Tashildar's refusal to grant permission to install a Stan Swamy pillar on private land.

Justice Swaminathan went on to remark that similar principles would certainly apply when it comes to the installation of a war memorial on private patta land.

"If for erecting stone pillar in memory of Stan Swamy permission is not required, certainly, no permission is required for erecting a stupa in memory of Natham Kanavai battle," the Court said.

The petition was filed by Siva Kalaimani Ambalam, the Managing Trustee of Thannarasu Kallar Nadu Charitable Trust. He sought to erect a memorial stupa on his patta land at Puthur Village, Natham Taluk, to commemorate a battle said to have been fought in 1755 at the Natham Kanavai (Natham Pass).

The Tahsildar of Natham rejected the request through an order dated May 28, 2024, citing administrative reasons. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The State argued that the petition was belated. The Court, however, declined to dismiss the plea on that basis alone.

“No doubt, the writ petition has been filed belatedly. But then, the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked in this case. So long as the impugned memo (Tashildar's order) is holding good, the petitioner cannot install the Stupa in the petition-mentioned site," the Court pointed out.

The State authorities further submitted that permission was refused because parliamentary elections were in the offing, and that a police report had since been obtained for taking further action.

The Court said it could not fully accept this approach, and underlined the importance of preserving historical memory:

“The petitioner after all wants to erect a stupa to commemorate the victory of native forces over the colonial forces. Such events must be celebrated and preserved for historical memory," the Court said.

The Court also referred to constitutional duties and the need to remember struggles against colonial rule.

“Article 51A of the Constitution of India mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom and render national service when called upon to do so," Justice Swaminathan noted.

He added that many people today are unaware of the battles and struggles waged by Indian society to rid itself of colonial rule. Colonial power did not yield to moral appeals represented by Biblical sayings, he noted. Indians had to fight and pay a huge price to secure their freedom, he observed while commenting on the importance of remembering such battles.

“Imperialism was no respecter of the biblical saying ‘ask and it shall be given’. The British occupied us and ruled us for close to two hundred years. But right from the beginning, there was resistance and struggle. A false historical narrative has been built as if we got freedom without paying any price ... Tamil Nadu has contributed," the ruling stated.

The Court also observed that there were even some who said that the first war for Indian independence happened on Tamil soil, and not 1857 (referring to the Indian rebellion of 1857 that took place in north India.).

The Court added that while it could not decide on such contested historical questions, it could take judicial notice of the fact that resistance to colonial rule took place in Madurai as well.

“This Court is not competent to go into these historical questions. But it can take judicial notice of the fact that the British met their match in the region of Madurai," Justice Swaminathan said.

He opined that such victories against colonial forces deserved to be remembered.

“Every such victory obtained at great cost and against impossible odds deserves to be relished and the memory of the martyrs honoured," he observed.

The Court further reiterated that there is no statutory framework requiring permission for installing statues or memorials on private patta land, and that executive instructions cannot override proprietary rights.

Quoting an earlier judgment concerning the installation of a freedom fighter's statue, Justice Swaminathan added,

“Just as one’s home is his castle, one’s land is his fiefdom. The State can step in only by due process of law.”

The Court contrasted this with situations where law expressly mandates permission, such as for the erection of religious structures for public worship, and emphasised that no similar statutory requirement existed for installing statues or memorials on private land.

The State had also relied on a Government Order on the erection of statues. However, the Court observed that such orders regulating statues were understood as applicable to public places, not patta lands.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Ramsundarvijayraj, Kaviyarasan and Saravanak

The respondent authorities were represented by Government Advocates Raghavendran and Albert James

[Read Judgment]