The Hindu : Front Page : Petitioners get time to file rejoinder in Sethu case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Apr 16, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Petitioners get time to file rejoinder in Sethu case

Legal Correspondent

It is people’s belief that Ramar Sethu is a sacred place: Subramanian Swamy

Who says it is a place of worship, asks Justice Raveendran
We don’t say Ramar Sethu is not a sacred place: Chief Justice

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted two weeks to petitioners to file their rejoinder to the Centre’s stand that it was not feasible to consider an alignment alternative to the existing one for the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project.

When the matter was taken up by a two-judge Bench, it was pointed out that except Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, no petitioner including Rama Gopalan had filed his rejoinder. Dr. Swamy said the Centre had not complied with the court direction to carry out a study whether Ramar Sethu (Adam’s Bridge) could be declared an ancient monument. Nor did it state whether the Archaeological Survey of India had conducted any such study.

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, M.N. Krishnamani and Arun Jaitley, appearing for the other petitioners, said the issue raised in the petitions could not be decided without the Centre carrying out the study.

Senior counsel Fali Nariman, appearing for the Shipping Ministry, said the Centre had filed a comprehensive affidavit on the basis of the report of the Committee of Eminent Persons, and the matter could be argued.

Additional Solicitor-General R. Mohan appeared for the Sethusamudram Shipping Corporation.

Dr. Swamy said the Centre was now seeking to implement the project by demolishing Ramar Sethu. It could not be destroyed as it was a place of worship and anyone who tried to damage it should be booked for criminal offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code.

Judge’s poser

Justice R.V. Raveendran retorted: “Who says it is a place of worship? Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship?”

Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan told Dr. Swamy: “Don’t say people go there and worship.” He replied: “It is an admitted place of worship and I go there every year to worship. Lordship, it is not a question of your belief, but it is the belief of the people of this country.”

When the Chief Justice said, “It was a matter of perception,” Dr. Swamy replied: “Hindus unanimously believe that it is a place of worship. It is not [just] my belief. It is the belief of people of this country that it is a sacred place. You [court] cannot sanction the belief of the people.”

When Mr. Krishnamani joined Dr. Swamy and said, “People go to Rameswaram for worshipping Ramar Sethu,” the Chief Justice said, “We don’t say that it [Ramar Sethu] is not a sacred place.”

Acting on Dr. Swamy’s application, the court on August 31, 2007 restrained the Centre and the Sethusamudram Corporation from causing any damage to Ramar Sethu, while permitting dredging to continue.

In response, the Centre, quoting the report of eminent persons, asserted that there was no evidence to prove that Ramar Sethu was man made, and that it was only a natural formation. The existing ‘Alignment No. 6’ was the result of a comprehensive and careful examination of all relevant considerations since 1956, it said and prayed for vacating the interim stay.

The Bench posted further hearing to April 29.

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

Front Page