In Brief
Two special leave petitioners challenged an interim High Court order in the Shree Jagannath Temple redevelopment case, which involved alleged unauthorized construction in the monument's prohibited area. The Supreme Court held that essential public facilities—toilets, drainage, electrical works, and water supply—are excluded from the statutory definition of 'construction' and do not require restrictive permissions even in prohibited areas. The Court found the activities aligned with its own earlier directions in Mrinalini Padhi (2019) to provide amenities for pilgrims. The Court dismissed the appeals, criticizing frivolous public interest litigation that serves personal rather than genuine public interests, and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh per appellant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.