Tamil Nadu’s proposed Rs 1,200 crore secretariat complex at Chennai’s Foreshore Estate has come under political opposition, with former AIADMK minister D Jayakumar warning that the project could affect fishermen’s livelihoods, worsen traffic and eventually be converted into a hospital.
Jayakumar criticised the state government’s plan on Tuesday and urged it to identify an alternative location for the proposed facility, according to a report by Times of India. He said the government should have considered the range of people who use the Foreshore Estate stretch, including fishermen, commuters, students, schoolchildren, beachgoers and judges.
The proposed secretariat would be located along a busy coastal corridor in Chennai. The concerns raised by Jayakumar relate both to the use of the site and to the movement of people and vehicles around it. He warned that the project would face strong opposition from different sections if the government proceeded with the current location.
Jayakumar also questioned whether the complex would continue to serve as a secretariat in the long term. He compared the proposal with the secretariat complex constructed at Omandurar Government Estate during the tenure of the DMK government led by M Karunanidhi. After the AIADMK returned to power under J Jayalalithaa in 2011, that complex was converted into a super specialty hospital.
The comparison forms the basis of Jayakumar’s warning that the proposed Foreshore Estate facility could similarly be converted for another use in the future. The report does not indicate that the Tamil Nadu government has announced any such conversion plan for the Foreshore Estate project. The claim remains part of the opposition to the proposal and is not an announced feature of the project.
The location also brings the question of public access into the project’s immediate political debate. The Foreshore Estate area is used by residents, workers, students and visitors moving towards the beach and other parts of central Chennai. Jayakumar said the government should account for the area’s floating population and the presence of school zones while assessing the proposal.
His objections also focused on the possible effect on fishermen. The report does not provide details of the land parcel, the project’s design, construction schedule, traffic assessment or any rehabilitation or livelihood plan. It also does not state whether the government has responded to the objections or identified an alternative site.
Jayakumar separately criticised the state government over frequent power outages, accusing it of failing to ensure uninterrupted electricity supply and address consumer concerns. That criticism was made alongside his opposition to the secretariat proposal.
The next publicly reported step is the state government’s response to the objections and any further details it releases on the Foreshore Estate site, project design, traffic arrangements and implementation timeline.
