The British Governor Yale had constructed the tomb after burying the bodies of his four-year-old son Jacca David Elihu Yale and friend Joseph Hynmer.
The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Centre to produce a 1921 notification through which a 17th century British tomb, now located inside the High Court campus, was declared as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904.
A special Division Bench of Justices M. Sundar and N. Sathish Kumar granted a fortnight’s time for Deputy Solicitor General R. Rajesh Vivekananthan to submit a copy of the over 100-year-old notification since it was the epicenter of a litigation before the court.
The direction was issued on a third party writ appeal filed by senior counsel T. Mohan challenging a single judge’s June 27, 2023 order to shift the tomb, constructed by Elihu Yale who served as the Governor of Madras between 1687 and 1692, out of the High Court campus.
Representing the appellant, senior counsel Sriram Panchu questioned the very jurisdiction of the single judge to pass such an order. He contended that the tomb had a very interesting history connecting India, the United Kingdom and the United States and therefore it should not be disturbed.
He said, the prestigious Yale University, which was one of the eight Ivy League schools in the United States, was named after British Governor Yale who had constructed the tomb after burying the bodies of his four-year-old son Jacca David Elihu Yale and friend Joseph Hynmer.
A notification was issued on January 20, 1921 under the 1904 Act for declaring the tomb, consisting of an obelisk built over a chamber, as a protected monument. After Independence, it was continued to be protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958.
Mr. Panchu also brought it to the notice of the court that Yale University and Tamil Nadu too had a connection with former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai having received the varsity’s highly regarded Chubb fellowship and having been invited to deliver a speech there in 1968.
He said that advocate B. Manoharan who had filed a writ petition before the single judge had absolutely no personal interest in the matter and that the petition was filed purely in public interest since the lawyer wanted the land to be used for construction of a multi-level vehicle parking facility inside the court campus.
When the case had been filed in public interest, it ought to have been heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and not by a single judge as per rules, the senior counsel said. He also pointed out that the writ petitioner had not sought to quash the 1921 notification.
Reading out the prayer of the writ petitioner before the single judge, Mr. Panchu said, the litigant had only sought for a declaration that Yale’s tomb was not an ancient monument. The senior counsel said, such a declaration could not be sought without assailing the validity of the 1921 notification.
After hearing Mr. Panchu for quite sometime, the judges felt that it would be essential for them to peruse the 1921 notification before proceeding ahead with Mr. Mohan’s writ appeal as well as another appeal filed by the Union Ministry of Culture too challenging the single judge’s order.
Apart from the two writ appeals, Mr. Mohan had also filed a writ petition against proposed construction of a five-storey court building near the tomb. In his writ petition, he had also insisted on planned development of the High Court campus without putting up constructions in a haphazard manner.