Supreme Court orders status quo on relocation of Yale tomb in Madras High Court

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea challenging a Madras High Court order that directed the shifting of a colonial-era tomb known as the Yale tomb or Hynmers’ Obelisk, from its present location within the High Court compound to another site [T Mohan vs. B Manoharan & Ors.]..The structure houses the graves of David Yale, son of former Madras Governor Elihu Yale, and one of David Yale's close friends, Joseph Hymners.A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on Friday sought the response of the Ministry of Culture, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and others in the matter. The Court also ordered that status quo be maintained for now. "Issue notice, returnable within four weeks," the top court ordered..The dispute traces back to a plea filed in 2022 by lawyer B Manoharan before the Madras High Court, seeking a declaration that Hynmers’ Obelisk was not an ancient monument and should be relocated.He contended that the tomb had no archaeological significance and did not come within the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.In July 2023, the High Court directed the ASI to shift the tomb out of the Court campus. The Court reasoned that the mere existence of the structure for over a century was not a ground to treat it as a protected monument. A single judge held that the structure, which was built around 320 years ago to mark the burial spots of Hynmers and Yale, had neither archaeological value nor any artistic value..Shed slavish mindset, shift British-era Yale Tomb out of court premises: Madras High Court tells ASI.This order was subsequently challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court, which upheld the single judge’s ruling. This ruling has now been challenged before the Supreme Court..During yesterday's hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the petitioner and recounted that Hynmers’ Obelisk had been declared a protected monument under a 1921 notification issued under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.He argued that an expert body had already applied its mind to the matter and recognised the structure as a monument of national importance."It is a monument of national importance. My respectful submission is, if there is a monument of national importance, a Court ought not to be examining it in what I would describe as a 'superficial manner," Divan argued..Justice Vikram Nath, however, pointed out that the Madras High Court had only directed relocation of the monument and not its demolition.Divan responded that even such a course was “quite terrifying.” He maintained that decisions on the monument’s status were not for the Court to make.The Bench proceeded to ask whether the petitioner sought a stay on the Madras High Court’s order. Divan responded that what was required was the preservation of the existing state of affairs, without disturbing the monument.The Court thereafter directed that the status quo with respect to the structures be maintained until further orders..The petition before the Supreme Court was filed through Advocate-on-Record Naveen Hedge..[Live Coverage]