Environmental Restrictions on Sisodia Rani Ka Bagh: Supreme Court’s Verdict

The case of The Director, Department of Archaeology and Museums, Jaipur vs. Ashish Gautam & Others revolves around the environmental concerns related to the use of the historic monument, Sisodia Rani Ka Bagh, in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The dispute primarily involved the prohibition of social functions like weddings and the use of loudspeakers, fireworks, and laser lights at the site, as directed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Central Zonal, Bhopal.

Background of the Case

Sisodia Rani Ka Bagh is a historic garden built in 1728 by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh for his queen. The garden, which blends Mughal and Rajput architectural styles, is adorned with murals and paintings depicting Lord Krishna and Radha. Over time, the monument became a popular venue for social functions, including weddings, which generated revenue for its maintenance.

On May 1, 2012, the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Rajasthan, declared Sisodia Rani Ka Bagh as a protected monument. Subsequently, on June 7, 2012, a notification was issued, allowing social functions with specific conditions.

However, concerns arose regarding the environmental impact of such activities. A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Ashish Gautam in the Rajasthan High Court, seeking restrictions on the use of laser lights, loudspeakers, and fireworks at the site, citing threats to the wildlife in the nearby reserve forest. The case was later transferred to the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

NGT’s Ruling

The NGT ruled that the monument was part of a forest area and imposed a blanket ban on all social functions, including weddings, within the premises. The tribunal also prohibited the use of laser lights, fireworks, and loudspeakers at high volumes to prevent disturbance to wildlife.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The Department of Archaeology and Museums, Jaipur, challenged the NGT’s ruling in the Supreme Court, arguing that:

The monument was an important site for tourism, and the ban would negatively impact state revenue.
The monument was situated adjacent to the city and had been used for social functions for a long time.
Existing restrictions already regulated noise levels and other disturbances.
The order affected the preservation and maintenance of the monument, which relied on funds generated from hosting events.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Department of Archaeology and Museums)

The Department of Archaeology contended that:

The NGT order imposed an unnecessary and excessive ban, which was against public interest.
Only controlled and regulated functions were allowed, ensuring minimal disturbance to wildlife.
The monument was enclosed within a concrete boundary, limiting its impact on the surrounding environment.
Tourism and state revenue would be adversely affected.

Arguments by the Respondent (Ashish Gautam)

Ashish Gautam and other environmental advocates supported the NGT’s ruling, arguing that:

The monument was located in a reserve forest area, making its use for social functions environmentally unsustainable.
Noise pollution from social functions disturbed the local wildlife.
The original plea sought only restrictions on loudspeakers, fireworks, and laser lights, but a total ban was imposed by the NGT.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the NGT’s ruling, allowing the use of the monument for regulated activities while maintaining strict environmental controls. The Court made the following key observations:

Controlled Use of the Monument

The Supreme Court ruled that the site could be used for appropriate activities but only during designated hours:

“The Monument may be used for appropriate multi-purpose activities between 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM only. No activity to be permitted after 8:00 PM.”

Ban on Noise and Light Pollution

The Court upheld restrictions on noise and air pollution:

Use of laser lights, loudspeakers, and fireworks was completely prohibited.
Strict noise regulations must be followed.
Musical fountains and lighting systems could continue but must be regularly maintained.

Conservation and Beautification

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for further conservation and beautification of the site:

The Rajasthan government was directed to appoint a consultant to oversee the site’s development.
Additional measures, including improved horticulture and preservation of murals, should be implemented.
A dedicated staff was to be appointed for maintenance.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for heritage conservation and environmental protection:

It ensures that historic monuments remain accessible for public use while balancing environmental concerns.
It establishes that tourism and conservation can coexist through regulated practices.
It sets a precedent for future cases involving the use of historic sites for commercial purposes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in The Director, Department of Archaeology and Museums, Jaipur vs. Ashish Gautam & Others strikes a balance between heritage conservation, environmental protection, and public utility. While the NGT sought to impose a complete ban on social functions at Sisodia Rani Ka Bagh, the Supreme Court’s decision allows regulated activities while ensuring strict environmental controls. This landmark ruling reinforces the importance of sustainable tourism and responsible heritage management.

Petitioner Name: The Director, Department of Archaeology and Museums, Jaipur.
Respondent Name: Ashish Gautam & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 11-05-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Director, Depart vs Ashish Gautam & Othe Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-05-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category