“The Supreme Court bench said Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy and senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, while opposing the demolition of the Ram Sethu, put forward serious arguments for conducting an ASI probe and for carrying the project through other alignments. "You (should) also explore the possibility of carrying out the project through any other channels (alignments)," the bench said.”__________________________
by Our Special Correspondent
(May 09, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre to consider conducting an archaeological survey to ascertain whether the Ram Sethu can be declared an ancient monument.
The Supreme Court also wanted the government to explore the possibility of pushing the Sethusamudram project through other alignments which would not damage the Ram Sethu. The Supreme Court bench said that in the interregnum (the matter will be taken up for further hearing on July 22) the Centre can consider these two aspects as directed by the Madras high court on June 19, 2007. Union tourism and culture minister Ambika Soni had been insisting that unless an archaeological survey is conducted it cannot be determined whether the Ram Sethu is man-made or a natural formation. It is only after an archaeological survey that the Union culture ministry determines whether or not it is a heritage site.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and comprising Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal said, "There is a specific direction of the Madras high court that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) should carry out investigations on whether or not Ram Sethu is an ancient monument."
The Supreme Court bench said Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy and senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, while opposing the demolition of the Ram Sethu, put forward serious arguments for conducting an ASI probe and for carrying the project through other alignments. "You (should) also explore the possibility of carrying out the project through any other channels (alignments)," the bench said.
Appearing for the Centre, senior advocate Fali S. Nariman responded positively to the Supreme Court’s view. Dr Swamy, Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan and others, while arguing against the demolition of the Ram Sethu, contended it was possible to go ahead with the project through alternative alignments that will be economically more viable and cause no damage to the environment besides protecting the religious beliefs of Hindus, who consider the structure sacred.
Dr Swamy, who filed the petition in favour of declaring Ram Sethu a protected monument, had alleged that the expert committee of eminent persons appointed by the government to review the project resisted an ASI probe that the structure was man-made. While the senior politician was questioning the committee’s report, the bench said his prayer in the petition was only confined to the Rama Setu but he was arguing on the entire Sethusamudram project.
At this, Dr Swamy said, "If I prove that the project is illegal then the Ram Sethu will be protected." He said he would stop if the Centre said the Ram Sethu would be protected. Dr Swamy said he was touching other aspects of the project as the economics projected in the scheme was a "fraud", public money was being misused and the public was being misled.
He added that India has failed to comply with international obligations in regard to the project by not taking the Sri Lankan government into confidence as the scheme has implications for that country’s maritime boundary. Dr Swamy said the authorities in Sri Lanka are watching the outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court here and Colombo may drag India to the International Court of Justice in the Hague seeking an independent probe into the project’s environmental impact.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment