Court Rules Repairs Do Not Constitute “Construction” Under Ancient Monuments Act; Emphasizes Right to Safety and Abuse of Legal Process
In a significant judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, the Gujarat High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia for alleged unauthorized construction near the protected Rani Chippri Masjid monument in Ahmedabad. The Court held that the repairs and renovation work carried out by the petitioner did not amount to “construction” as defined under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), and therefore, no criminal offence under Section 30(B) of the Act was made out.
The case arose when the petitioner undertook renovation and repair work on a dilapidated house situated within 100 meters of the protected monument, after receiving a safety notice under Section 264 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (GPMC Act). Despite complying with the notice for public safety, an FIR was lodged alleging violation of the AMASR Act for carrying out unauthorized construction in the regulated area without prior permission from the Archaeological Department.
Justice P. M. Raval, presiding over the matter, observed that the statutory definition of "construction" under Section 2(dc) of the AMASR Act explicitly excludes repair and renovation works that do not alter the structure’s framework, height, or footprint. The Court noted undisputed evidence including photographs confirming that the petitioner’s work involved only restoration and stabilization to avert imminent structural collapse, without adding any new structural elements or increasing the building’s dimensions.
The Court also emphasized the fundamental right to safety under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, underscoring that compliance with municipal safety directives to prevent public hazards cannot be criminalized. It was further highlighted that the police had failed to conduct any technical or architectural assessment before initiating criminal proceedings, thereby abusing the legal process.
Rejecting the respondent’s argument that prior permission was mandatory for any work, the Court clarified that emergency repairs mandated for public safety do not automatically translate into criminal liability under the AMASR Act. The petitioner’s reply denying new construction was found to be factually and legally correct, distinguishing restoration from construction.
Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court found that the FIR was registered without a prima facie case and quashed it to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system. The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used to penalize lawful repairs and renovations, especially those undertaken to ensure public safety near heritage sites.
Bottom Line:
Criminal proceedings under Section 30(B) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2010 cannot be initiated when the work executed constitutes mere repairs and renovation and does not fall within the definition of "construction" under Section 2(dc) of the Act. Compliance with statutory safety obligations to avert public hazards does not entail criminal liability.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 2(dc), Section 2(m), Section 30(B) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958; Section 264 of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949; Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 21 of Constitution of India
Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975953
