The Hindu : Front Page : Carry out dredging without damaging ‘Rama Sethu’: court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Sep 01, 2007
ePaper

Front Page

Front Page

Carry out dredging without damaging ‘Rama Sethu’: court

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, by an interim order, restrained the Centre and the Sethusamudram Corporation from causing damage in any manner to “alleged” ‘Rama Sethu’ (Adam’s bridge) while implementing the Sethusamudram canal project.

A Bench consisting of Justices B.N. Agrawal and P.P. Naolekar passed this restraint order till September 14 on an application filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy apprehending that Rama Sethu would be damaged in the next few days using RDX explosives.

The Bench issued notice on the application seeking the response of the Centre, the Sethusamudram Corporation and other respondents on the question of interim relief — not to damage Rama Sethu as well as the main transferred petitions. “Till September 14, the alleged Rama Sethu/Adam’s bridge shall not be damaged in any manner. Dredging activity may be carried out so long as it does not damage Rama Sethu.”

Stay opposed

Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramanian (appearing for the Centre) and Additional Solicitor-General R. Mohan (appearing for the Sethusamudram Corporation) opposed the grant of any interim stay. They pointed out that since 2005 the court had refused interim stay and the same position should continue.

When both of them refused to give any assurance that Rama Sethu would not be damaged, the Bench said: “If you demolish the bridge, which is the subject matter in this petition, what will remain for this court to decide. Nobody has any objection to dredging but no damage should be caused to the bridge. If the bridge vanishes what will happen to the petition? If you say the government’s view has always to prevail, there is nothing for this court to decide. If it is destroyed it cannot be restored back. That is our worry.”

Scientific evidence

Mr. Subramanian maintained that Rama Sethu was not man made and the study conducted by the Geological Survey of India and the scientific evidence collected by the government showed that the stretch was a natural formation of sand and calcium deposits.

“According to the government, the bridge is not a national monument. There are various interpretations of the Ramayana and every aspect has been considered by the government in larger perspective,” he said.

Dr. Swamy said: “I am not opposing the project. I want Rama Sethu declared an ancient monument and to implement the project by following any alternative route or alignment without affecting or destroying Rama Sethu. If the bridge is demolished, irreparable damage would be caused. Self-declared atheists are systematically debasing our values and are keen on implementing the project ignoring the sentiments of the people.”

When Mr. Subramanian opposed this, the Bench told Dr. Swamy, “Do not bring in politics here.” Dr. Swamy replied, “I am saying this only to show the bias of those who want the bridge to be demolished.”

The Bench told Mr. Subramaniam, “You are not in a position to say that in the meantime [until the response is filed] no damage will happen to the bridge. In what way do you suffer if the interim order [not to damage the bridge] is passed?”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page