Image credit: https://x.com/GemsOfINDOLOGY
Research suggests the AMASR Act 1958 was enacted to protect India’s cultural heritage post-independence, driven by concerns over neglect and unauthorized construction, with a focus on preserving ancient sites including various places of worship belonging to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh and Tribal. It seems likely that the act aimed to balance heritage preservation with economic benefits like tourism, but implementation has faced criticism for failing to protect key heritage sites.[1] The evidence leans toward failures in enforcement, such as the Puri Jagannath Temple case, where construction damaged archaeological remains, and proposed amendments may weaken protections, sparking controversy.[2]
AMASR Act was passed to address post-independence concerns about preserving India’s rich cultural heritage. After gaining independence in 1947, the nation sought to establish its identity, focusing on protecting ancient monuments from neglect, vandalism, and unauthorized development. This was particularly crucial for safeguarding temples and historical sites, seen as central to India’s cultural and religious identity. The act created “prohibited” (100 meters) and “regulated” (200 meters) zones around monuments to prevent encroachments, aiming to promote tourism for economic benefits while preserving history.[3]
1.2.1 Historical Context and Rationale
Post-independence, India faced the challenge of defining its national identity, distinct from its colonial past. The British had introduced laws like the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904, but these were often inadequate or unevenly applied. The AMASR Act of 1958 was a response to this, aiming to create a robust framework for heritage protection. It sought to prevent neglect, vandalism, and unauthorized construction, which threatened monuments, many of which are over 100 years old and include temples, caves, and inscriptions.[4]
The act’s rationale is deeply tied to preserving India’s cultural heritage, seen as the bedrock of its cultural and religious identity. The act defines a “prohibited area” within 100 meters and a “regulated area” extending to 200 meters around protected monuments, aiming to create buffer zones against encroachments. It also regulates archaeological excavations and protects sculptures and carvings, aligning with the goal of promoting tourism for economic benefits while safeguarding history.[5]
1.2.2 Post-independence concerns included:
Many monuments had deteriorated under colonial rule, and there was a fear of continued neglect without legal protection. Rapid urbanization posed a threat, with potential encroachments on heritage sites. Preserving heritage was seen as a way to assert India’s sovereignty and distinguish itself from its colonial legacy. The act was thus a critical step to address these issues, reflecting a nationalist sentiment to protect sites that embody India’s historical and religious essence.
1.2.3 Implementation and Criticisms
Despite its noble intentions, the AMASR Act has faced significant criticism for its implementation failures. These criticisms center on the act’s inability to effectively protect ancient heritage sites having spiritual significance for Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and tribal, with several high-profile cases highlighting systemic weaknesses.
One prominent example is the Puri Jagannath Temple in Odisha, a 12th-century Hindu temple and a centrally protected monument. In recent years, the Odisha government undertook the ₹800 crore Shree Mandir Parikrama Project, involving construction within the prohibited area without prior ASI permission, violating the AMASR Act. Reports indicate that excavations likely destroyed archaeological remains, with 15 to 20 feet of stratified deposits removed, causing irreparable damage. No heritage impact assessment or Ground Penetrating Radar Survey (GPRS) was conducted, and officials from the Odisha Bridge and Construction Corporation (OBCC) were reportedly clueless about soil removal methods and cultural findings. Frequent changes in drawings and structural designs, compared to the National Monument Authority’s presentation, further compounded the issue, with the Detailed Project Report (DPR) silent on the redevelopment and renovation of Mathas around the monument.[6] This incident, criticized by people interested in cultural revival, underscores the act’s enforcement failures, allowing violations that threaten Hindu heritage.
Another example is the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi, where Hindus used the AMASR Act to argue for exemptions from the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, claiming the site was originally a Hindu temple. This highlights a critique that the act is not being leveraged effectively to reclaim or protect ancient religious sites enriching native identity of the people.[7]
1.2.4 Proposed Amendments and Controversies
The government has proposed amendments to the AMASRA Act, notably in 2010, 2017 and 2023, aiming to allow construction within the 100-meter prohibited area for public works. These changes, intended to balance heritage preservation with development needs, have sparked controversy. Critics argue that such amendments could dilute protections, paving the way for more encroachments and destructions, especially around Hindu temples, Jain temples, Buddhist vihars and stupas, tribal places of worship, Sikh gurudwaras. For instance, a 2023 proposal to liberalize construction rules was met with concerns about the gradual erosion of the sanctity of protected monuments, with public comments highlighting fears of indiscriminate constructions and vibrations affecting sites.[8]
These amendments are seen as prioritizing development over cultural identity, potentially endangering sites central to ancient heritage having spiritual significance for native religions. The culture minister’s suggestion in 2023 of further amendments adds to the debate, with calls for ensuring that any changes strengthen, rather than weaken, the act’s protective measures.
1.2.5 Security and Accountability Issues
A parliamentary panel’s report, as recent as December 2023, highlighted significant security gaps, noting that only 248 out of 3,693 centrally protected monuments (CPMs) have security guards, less than 6.7%. The government provided only 2,578 security personnel out of the required 7,000, citing budgetary constraints. This lack of security leaves many heritage sites, including Hindu temples, vulnerable to theft, vandalism, and encroachment. The panel recommended incorporating “strong provisions” in the act to fix accountability of government officials, a move supported by Hindu groups who see this as essential to protect cultural assets.[9]
The AMASR Act’s failures are not just administrative shortcomings but threats to India’s cultural and religious identity. Hindu nationalists argue that the act should prioritize the protection of Hindu temples, seen as living symbols of the nation’s soul. The perception of selective enforcement, where some religious sites are better protected than others, fuels controversy, with claims that Hindu sites are disproportionately neglected. This is evident in discussions around the Gyanvapi and Qutub Minar cases, where the act has been used to argue for reclaiming Hindu heritage, yet its enforcement has been seen as inadequate.
The critiques also emphasize the need for uniform application of the act, ensuring that Hindu temples are not sidelined in favor of development projects. For instance, BJP leader G Kishan Reddy, in 2022, mentioned working on amendments to make the act “more flexible and friendly,” but Hindu groups remain wary, fearing that flexibility could come at the cost of heritage protection.[10]
Thus the rationale of the Act is to protect rich cultural heritage of India but it failed to save the culture specially religiously significant places belonging to native religions of Bharat.
References:
[1] “Indian Archaeological study through a Legal Lens: Inquiry on the Legal perspectives with Special Emphasis on Heritage By-Laws.” Varuni V Kashyap, Legal Research and Analysis, available at https://legalresearchandanalysis.com/indian-archaeological-study-through-a-legal-lens-inquiry-on-the-legal-perspectives-with-special-emphasis-on-heritage-by-laws/, Last visited on 16.07.2025
[2] “Explained: Supreme Court rejects pleas against excavation around Puri temple, what is the case?” Apurva Vishwanath, Dt. 3.06.2022, available at https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-puri-heritage-corridor-case-jagannath-temple-odisha-7949919/, Last visited 16.07.2025
[3] “Follow-up on the Performance Audit of Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities”, Union Government (Civil) Ministry of Culture Report No. 10 of 2022 (Performance Audit), Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
[4] “Vandalism on Built Heritage in Kerala: A Threat to Cultural Identity”, Alan C. Dominic
[5] “National Strategy For Sustainable Tourism” Ministry of Tourism Government of India April 2022
[6] “New radar survey around Puri’s Jagannath Temple triggers fresh row in Odisha”, Debabrata Mohanty, Hindustan Times Dt. 22.05.2022, available on https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-radar-survey-around-puri-s-jagannath-temple-triggers-fresh-row-in-odisha-101653238140935.html, Last visited Dt. 16.07.2025
[7] “Places Of Worship Act, 1991: When A Law Itself Is Put To Trial” Ashutosh Sharma, Hindutva Watch, Dt. 28.05.2022, available at https://www.hindutvawatch.org/places-of-worship-act-1991-when-a-law-itself-is-put-to-trial/, Last visited on Dt. 16.07.2025
[8] The AMASR Act: Govt to ease rules on construction around protected monuments, Vajiram and Ravi, Dt. 1.04.2023, available at: https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/the-amasr-act-govt-to-ease-rules-on-construction-around-protected-monuments/, Last visited 16.07.2025
[9] “Parliamentary panel recommends having provisions in AMASR Act to fix accountability of govt officials”, Deccan Herald, Dt. 17.12.2023, available at https://www.deccanherald.com/india/parliamentary-panel-recommends-having-provisions-in-amasr-act-to-fix-accountability-of-govt-officials-2814748, last visited 16.07.2025
[10] “Union Culture Minister Shri G Kishan Reddy chairs the 37th meeting of Central Advisory Board of Archaeology (CABA)” PIB, Dt. 14.06.2022, available at https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1834038, Last visited 16.07.2025
Know more about temple laws….
