New Delhi, Oct 14: Giving a new twist to the
Sethusamudram project controversy, the government has
contended before the Supreme Court that the mythological Rama
Setu bridge is not an "essential" and "integral" part of Hindu
religion.
"It has not been proved undoubtedly to be the belief
of the Hindu community that Lord Rama did not himself break
the bridge. Nor has it been established that whatever remains
of the Rama Setu as a piece of worship is an essential and
integral part of the Hindu religion," the UPA government said
in its written submission.
The government stand assumes importance as on the last
hearing on July 30 it had assured the court that it was
considering the possibility of pushing the project through an
alternative alignment to avoid any damage to 'Rama Setu' for
which an expert committee has been set up.
However, it persisted with the argument that Rama Setu or
Adams Bridge was broken by Lord Rama while returning from Sri
Lanka and as such "anything broken could not be worshipped".
It said that the opponents of the project have not proved
that Rama Setu forms an "integral" and "essential" part of
Hindu religion and has to be protected.
"A religious belief or practise which is not an
essential and integral part of the religion is not protected
by Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution", the Centre said and
quoted various previous judgements of the apex court to drive
home its point.
Following the government assurance in July that it was
considering an alternative alignment for the project, the
Prime Minister Office had set up an expert committee headed by
noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy
Research Institute, to look into the suggestion.
Though no time-frame has been set for the Committee to
place its report, the apex court had said that it will
consider the findings of the panel before giving its verdict
and had allowed the contesting parties to file written
submissions if they wished.
In September last year, the Centre had to withdraw its
two controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Lord
Rama and opposing claims that the Rama Setu was a man-made
bridge.
The Centre once again attacked the AIADMK Chief J
Jayalalithaa for opposing the project on religious grounds
saying that the environmental clearance to the project was
given by her government.
It said that Jayalalithaa's change in stand was
politically motivated despite the fact that in the 2001
Assembly elections she came to power by promising in the
election manifesto that the project would be implemented.
"Now at this point of time to say that the Adams
Bridge should not be cut is nothing but a politically
motivated submission," the Centre said.
Following the government assurance in July that it was
considering an alternative alignment for the project, the
Prime Minister Office had set up an expert committee headed by
noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy
Research Institute, to look into the suggestion.
Though no time-frame has been set for the Committee to
place its report, the apex court had said that it will
consider the findings of the panel before giving its verdict
and had allowed the contesting parties to file written
submissions if they wished.
In September last year, the Centre had to withdraw its
two controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Lord
Rama and opposing claims that the Rama Setu was a man-made
bridge.
The Centre once again attacked the AIADMK Chief J
Jayalalithaa for opposing the project on religious grounds
saying that the environmental clearance to the project was
given by her government.
It said that Jayalalithaa's change in stand was
politically motivated despite the fact that in the 2001
Assembly elections she came to power by promising in the
election manifesto that the project would be implemented.
"Now at this point of time to say that the Adams
Bridge should not be cut is nothing but a politically
motivated submission," the Centre said.
Bureau Report