The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has informed the Bombay High Court that Savarkar Sadan, the former residence of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, cannot be declared a centrally protected monument of national importance as it is less than 100 years old. The ASI suggested it could be protected at the state level instead. This statement came in an affidavit responding to a public interest litigation aimed at preventing the building's demolition.
Savarkar Sadan in Mumbai's Shivaji Park, constructed in 1938 as a two-storey bungalow, served as the residence of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. He lived there until his death in 1966, hosting meetings with prominent figures including Subhas Chandra Bose, Nathuram Godse, and Narayan Apte. In 1984, second, third, and fourth floors were added, converting it into a building with eight flats.
The Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak Trust maintains one ground-floor room as a mini museum, displaying trophies, outfits, and memorabilia linked to Savarkar. Sunanda Vishwas Savarkar, the 92-year-old daughter-in-law of the ideologue, resides there, while the remaining flats stand vacant.
In an affidavit filed on Thursday by Abhijit Ambekar, Superintending Archaeologist at the ASI, it was stated that under Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, a monument qualifies for central protection only if it has historical, archaeological, or artistic interest and has existed for at least 100 years. The structure does not meet this criterion but could be included in the state-protected monuments list or the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) heritage list to safeguard it from demolition and ensure future preservation.
The affidavit responded to a public interest litigation filed by Pankaj Phadnis, president of Abhinav Bharat Congress, an independent public policy think tank. The PIL sought declaration of Savarkar Sadan as a monument of national importance and formulation of a special compensation policy for its inhabitants. The petitioner feared the building might be razed due to discussions between some owners and a builder for redevelopment, including two adjacent properties.
