AMASRA: 2.6 Section 4 Power of Central Government to declare ancient monuments, etc., to be of national importance

2.6 Power of Central Government to declare ancient monuments, etc., to be of national importance

2.6.1 Bare Act Provision:

4. Power of Central Government to declare ancient monuments, etc., to be of national importance.―(1) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any ancient monument or archaeological site and remains not included in section 3 is of national importance, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give two months’ notice of its intention to declare such ancient monument or archaeological site and remains to be of national importance; and a copy of every such notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the monument or site and remains, as the case may be.

(2) Any person interested in any such ancient monument or archaeological site and remains may, within two months after the issue of the notification, object to the declaration of the monument, or the archaeological site and remains, to be of national importance.

(3) On the expiry of the said period of two months, the Central Government may, after considering the objections, if any, received by it, declare by notification in the Official Gazette, the ancient monument or the archaeological site and remains, as the case may be, to be of national importance.

(4) A notification published under sub-section (3) shall, unless and until it is withdrawn, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the ancient monument or the archaeological site and remains to which it relates is of national importance for the purposes of this Act.

2.6.2 Power to Declare Ancient Monuments and Sites of National Importance:

Sub-Section (1) provides about Power to Declare Ancient Monuments and Sites of National Importance. It empowers the Central Government to declare any ancient monument or archaeological site not already listed under Section 3 as being of national importance by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette.[1] It’s like giving a cultural VIP pass to sites with historical, archaeological, or artistic value, bringing them under the Act’s strict rules, such as restrictions on construction or excavation. This flexibility ensures Bharat’s evolving heritage is safeguarded for future generations.

The Rajasthan court upheld the Central Government’s authority under Section 4(1) to declare an 18th-century Fort of Chomu near Jaipur as nationally important, emphasizing that the clause enables proactive identification of heritage sites. The court noted that the government must base declarations on expert recommendations, ensuring decisions aren’t arbitrary.[2] Cultural Heritage Doctrine, Administrative Discretion Doctrine, and Public Trust Doctrine are the backbone of this sub-section.

2.6.3 Preliminary Notification and Public Objections:

Sub-section (2) requires the Central Government to issue a preliminary notification in the Official Gazette when it intends to declare a site or monument as nationally important, giving the public two months to raise objections.[3] It’s like inviting Bharat’s citizens to get involvement in cultural preservation. This provision ensures transparency, allowing communities to participate before the government finalizes the decision, balancing heritage protection with public interests.

The court clarified that Sub-Section (2)’s public objection period is mandatory to prevent arbitrary declarations. The court stressed that the government must consider objections to avoid infringing on property rights or religious sentiments. This ruling highlights Sub-Section (2) as a democratic safeguard, ensuring the process is fair and inclusive, making it accessible as a people’s check on government power. The provision is based on Due Process Doctrine, Public Participation Doctrine, and Transparency Doctrine.

2.6.4 Consideration of Objections and Final Declaration

Sub-Section (3) mandates that the Central Government must consider all objections received within the two-month period before issuing a final notification to declare a monument or site as nationally important.[4] This is like the government listening to villagers worried about losing farmland near a newly declared ancient temple. This provision ensures objections are reviewed fairly, preventing hasty decisions, and finalizes the site’s status, bringing it under the Act’s protection. It’s like sealing the deal to protect Bharat’s heritage with due care.

In many cases the judiciary emphasized that Sub-Section (3) requires the government to genuinely address objections, not dismiss them summarily. Such rulings underscore Sub-Section (3)’s role in ensuring accountability, making it clear to non-legal audiences that Bharat values fairness in heritage decisions. Fair Hearing Doctrine, Administrative Accountability Doctrine and Public Trust Doctrine are enshrined under the provision of Sub-Section (3)

2.6.5 Effect of Declaration

Sub-Section (4) states that once a monument or site is declared nationally important under Section 4, it is deemed to be so for all purposes of the Act, triggering protections like restrictions on construction, excavation, or misuse.[5] This provision ensures the declaration has immediate, comprehensive effect, securing Bharat’s cultural treasures under the Act’s full framework.

Sub-Section (4) instantly applies all Act provisions, such as Section 19’s restrictions to a declared site. The court rejected attempts to bypass protections, emphasizing that Sub-Section (4) ensures uniform application. This ruling makes Sub-Section (4) relatable as a final step that locks in Bharat’s commitment to its heritage, ensuring no loopholes weaken protection. Statutory Effect Doctrine, Cultural Preservation Doctrine and Public Trust Doctrine are followed in this provision.

References:

[1] Smt. Shaila Madhukar Gore vs Union Of India, Bombay High Court in WP no. 2627 OF 2014 Dt. 12.12.2023 available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32634352/, Last visited on Dt. 18.07.2025

[2] Ram Gopal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan [AIR2007RAJ24]

[3] Report of the Select Committee on The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment) Bill, 2018”, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, February, 2019/Magha, 1940 (Saka)

[4] Smt. Shaila Madhukar Gore vs Union Of India, Bombay High Court in WP no. 2627 OF 2014 Dt. 12.12.2023 available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32634352/, Last visited on Dt. 18.07.2025

[5] Smt. Shaila Madhukar Gore vs Union Of India, Bombay High Court in WP no. 2627 OF 2014 Dt. 12.12.2023 available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32634352/, Last visited on Dt. 18.07.2025