Author: Legal Correspondent
Publication: The Hindu
Date: May 9, 2008
URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/09/stories/2008050950590100.htm
Introduction: Supreme Court asks Centre to
explore the possibility of a different alignment
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre
to explore the possibility of an alternative alignment or any other route
for the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project without damaging Ramar Sethu
and to consider whether an archaeological study could be conducted to declare
Ramar Sethu a national monument.
Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, heading a
three-judge Bench, asked senior counsel Fali Nariman, appearing for the Centre,
to consider an alternative alignment and said that by this the government
could avoid the controversy (of damaging Ramar Sethu).
The CJI's suggestion came at the end of Thursday's
arguments on behalf of the petitioners. He told Mr. Nariman that "Subramanian
Swamy and senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan had said an alternative alignment
was not considered. Further, the direction given by the Madras High Court
[before the petitions were shifted to the Supreme Court] that archaeological
study must be conducted had not been implemented by the Centre."
Mr. Nariman said, "after the High Court
order, we have filed a comprehensive affidavit." Justice Raveendran pointed
out that the High Court order had not been quashed and the direction continued
to remain and the Centre had not answered this. Mr. Nariman said he [the Centre]
would consider the court's suggestion in this regard.
On the petitions filed by Dr. Swamy and Rama
Gopalan, the High Court on June 19, 2007 asked the Centre "to file a
counter-affidavit explaining whether any study has been undertaken by the
archaeological or any other department concerned in respect of Adam's Bridge/Ramar
Sethu and whether the said bridge can be regarded as a national monument.
The Union of India should also explain whether the said project can be implemented
without affecting Ramar Sethu by resorting to some other routes." Since
no affidavit had been filed on these aspects, the CJI asked the Centre to
consider this and posted the matter for further hearing on July 22.
