Chennai: The Tamil Nadu government’s plan to construct a new secretariat complex at Pattinapakkam has triggered sharp opposition from local fishermen, residents and many political leaders, who warn of severe traffic congestion, loss of livelihoods and environmental damage in an already dense coastal area.
The site of the proposed secretariat is only about 100 metres from Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s residence, but Pattinapakkam is a crowded stretch along the coast off south Chennai that combines residential colonies, schools and traditional fishing settlements along the coast.
Residents have organised a consultation meeting in Pattinapakkam on 15 September to decide the next course of action. Many have asked that the land be used for housing for fishing families instead of a multi-storey administrative complex of roughly two million square feet.
Fishermen have drawn a contrast with the government’s earlier decision to scrap the Parandur airport project after concerns were raised about farmland and environmental impact. They argue that the same sensitivity towards farmers and ecology is missing in the Pattinapakkam proposal, even though the coastal zone is ecologically fragile and would affect the fishing community as well.
Residents say that the Foreshore Estate junction is already a congested bottleneck since all the roads leading to the Pattinapakkam signal lead to traffic snarls during peak hours. Residents say that several schools, including St. John’s, St. Bede’s, Rosary and Santhome, are nearby, and the movement of government vehicles through the area every day would lead to accidents.
The same stretch also serves as a vital coastal link between central and south Chennai, so any large government complex is expected to worsen congestion further. Close to the beach, the area is also ecologically sensitive and fishing communities say that more than 1,200 households could be affected. The residents of the area claim that the land originally belonged to their community and that no government official or legislator consulted them before the order was issued.
“The area is set up in a manner that it serves as a means of livelihood for us and evictions would also take place for setting up the new secretariat. We were not consulted for this, which is unfair,” S. Lakshmi, who belongs to the fishing community, told ThePrint, arguing that financial compensation cannot replace their dependence on the sea.
Residents also fear that heightened security restrictions and heavier traffic will disrupt daily access to the beach and force the closure of the local fish market and small eateries that have grown up around it.
J. Kosumani, president of the Tamil Nadu Meenavargal Makkal Sangam, (Fishermen People’s Union) told ThePrint, “The fishing community will be impacted because the Santhome Road and Loop Road are both congested in the area. Besides the ecological and environmental factors, the livelihood of the people belonging to the fishing community will also be affected. The fish market and small eateries have opened up in the area and after the new secretariat comes up, these places will have to be shut down. We are against this decision and we do not want this building to come up here. We will be protesting against this in the coming days.”
Political leaders across parties have echoed these concerns. Communist Party of India State Secretary Veerapandian called for the project to be abandoned at once. “The project would seriously affect the livelihood rights of fishing communities, the coastal ecosystem, climate resilience, public access to the beach, and the security of an important government administrative institution,” he said. He urged the government to choose a safer and environmentally suitable location.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Member of Parliament Tamilachi Thangapandian also opposed the project and urged the government to abandon it.
“A narrow four-lane highway, with over eight schools, tens of thousands of residences in a densely populated area that serves as the livelihood of fishing communities, constructing a secretariat spanning 20 lakh square feet with multiple floors is terrible planning against public welfare. In this area already struggling with traffic congestion, if additional movement from ministers, officials, and security personnel is added, why should students, the general public, and fishing communities bear the impact? The coastal area is a livelihood for fishermen; it is not a construction site for the government,” she posted on social media platform X.
Pattali Makkal Katchi leader Anbumani Ramadoss and Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam general secretary T.T.V. Dhinakaran were among the first political leaders to have opposed the site. Tamil Nadu’s Bharatiya Janata Party president Nainar Nagendran alleged the location near the chief minister’s residence appeared to be politically motivated and questioned the proposed Rs 1,200-crore outlay, noting that the new Parliament building in Delhi cost around Rs 900 crore.
This is not the first time a secretariat relocation plan has run into public resistance. In early 2003, then chief minister J. Jayalalithaa’s proposal to shift the secretariat from Fort St. George to the Queen Mary’s College campus on Marina Beach led to public protests. The plan, which would have required demolishing most of the college buildings, was strongly opposed and eventually dropped. Residents and activists now say the Pattinapakkam proposal risks inviting a similar public backlash.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)