Stan Swamy seen as a fighter for tribal rights, but fact remains that he was a UAPA accused: Justice GR Swaminathan

Madras High Court judge Justice GR Swaminathan recently observed that while Stan Swamy, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, is seen as a fighter for tribal rights by sections of society, the fact remains that he was an accused in a case arising under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976.

Notably, this observation was made by Justice Swaminatha while quashing an order of the Natham Tahsildar rejecting permission to erect a memorial stupa commemorating the “Natham Kanavai War” of 1755, holding that no prior approval is required for installing such a structure on private patta land in the absence of a statutory restriction.

The judge cited a case wherein the petition before High Court wanted to erect a stone pillar containing the picture of Stan Swamy in a private patta land. In that decision, the High Court had observed that the state cannot prevent individuals from erecting memorials or statues on their private land, provided such installations do not cause public disturbances or violate legal provisions as it allowed erection of a stone pillar of Fr. Stan Swamy.

Justice Swaminathan cited that particular verdict to draw a parallel with the case before his bench and said, "In that case, the petitioner wanted to erect a stone pillar containing the picture of Stan Swamy in a private patta land. Permission was refused by the Tahsildar. It was quashed and permission was granted by this Court. It is true that Stan Swamy is seen as a fighter for tribal rights by sections of society. But the fact remains that he was an accused in acase arising under UAPA. He died in prison. If for erecting stone pillar in memory of Stan Swamy permission is not required, certainly, no permission is required for erecting a stupa in memory of Natham Kanavai battle".

With this view, Justice Swaminathan allowed a writ petition filed by Siva Kalaimani Ambalam, managing trustee of Thannarasu Kallar Nadu Charitable Trust and held that the petitioner was entitled to proceed with the erection of the memorial on land owned by him at Puthur Village in Natham Taluk of Dindigul district.

The petitioner had approached the high court seeking to commemorate a lesser-known historical episode involving resistance to British colonial forces. According to the materials placed before the court, the incident related to a confrontation in 1755 at the Natham Pass, where members of the Kallar community attacked a British contingent led by Colonel Alexander Heron. The troops were allegedly transporting brass idols looted from the Thirumogur (Koilkudi) Temple, and the attack resulted in the retrieval of the idols, though at the cost of heavy casualties on both sides.

The petitioner contended that the memorial stupa was intended purely to honour the memory of those who fought and died in the battle and that it was proposed to be erected only on private patta land belonging to the trust. He argued that the Tahsildar had no authority to deny permission when no law mandated prior approval for such a structure on private land. On behalf of the State, the Government Advocates submitted that permission had not been granted earlier as parliamentary elections were underway at the relevant time. It was further submitted that the authorities had since obtained a report from the jurisdictional police and that further action could be taken on that basis.

Justice Swaminathan, however, was not persuaded by the justification offered by the authorities. Court observed that the doctrine of laches could not be invoked merely because there was a delay in approaching the court, since the impugned order continued to operate and prevented the petitioner from erecting the memorial. Relying on earlier judgments of the Madras High Court, including his own decision in a 2023 case and a division bench decision, the judge reiterated that in the absence of a specific statute, the State cannot interfere with the rights of a patta holder to erect a statue or memorial on private land. Executive instructions or government orders, the court held, cannot curtail such rights unless backed by law.

Court also noted that the government orders relied upon by the State primarily dealt with erection of statues in public places and were not applicable to private patta lands. It was further observed that there was no law and order issue involved in the present case.

Case Title: Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam vs. The District Collector, Dindigu and Others

Order Date: November 26, 2025

Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan