06-19-2007, 09:32 PM
related to the above court proceedings, Dr, Kalyanaraman has a different story to report. Above news should be anyways discounted by 80%, given that it appeared in The (anti-)Hindu.
E-mail from Dr. K says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While waiting for the written order of the Madras High Court passed on 19 June 2007 some highlights can be reported.
The hearings took place both on 18th and 19th on four petitions: two petitions of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, one petition of Rama Gopalan and one impleading petition of Dr. S. Kalyanaraman.
A very wide range of issues related to the Sethusamudram channel and Rama Setu were considered in impressive court interventions and presentations by Dr. Swamy and Shri D. Sethuraman, Shri TV Ramanujam, Shri TV Krishnamachari Advocates.
The order passed by the court will constitute a landmark judgement in Indian jurisprudence. The order is a veritable direction for the imperative of determining an ancient monument of national importance under the 1958 Act in the context of the constitutional duty of every citizen and the responsibility of the state to protect such monuments. The order directed the Govt. of India and Director of Archaeological Survey of India to file their response in 4 weeks to the details provided by petitioners on the issue of Rama Setu as a national monument and to specify why other alignments which would not damage Rama Setu can be considered to protect the monument. (Court noted that no reasons in project reports, were adduced as to why other alignments were not evaluated so as not to damage Rama Setu â a specific injunction which was recorded by A Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee Report of 1956).
Many details of evidences related to Rama Setu or Adam's Bridge were also cited in the Court order. The authoritative version of the court order will be forwarded as soon as it becomes available.
The case was posted for the next hearing on July 23, 2007.
Here are some news reports which provide the usual skewed p-sec media perspective, together with a background on issues deliberated.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, July 23 is too late!!!! The dredging, dispite all the protests, continue, and have already completed 9% of the progress, as per the project website! Why could the court not issue a stay till the next hearing?
E-mail from Dr. K says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While waiting for the written order of the Madras High Court passed on 19 June 2007 some highlights can be reported.
The hearings took place both on 18th and 19th on four petitions: two petitions of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, one petition of Rama Gopalan and one impleading petition of Dr. S. Kalyanaraman.
A very wide range of issues related to the Sethusamudram channel and Rama Setu were considered in impressive court interventions and presentations by Dr. Swamy and Shri D. Sethuraman, Shri TV Ramanujam, Shri TV Krishnamachari Advocates.
The order passed by the court will constitute a landmark judgement in Indian jurisprudence. The order is a veritable direction for the imperative of determining an ancient monument of national importance under the 1958 Act in the context of the constitutional duty of every citizen and the responsibility of the state to protect such monuments. The order directed the Govt. of India and Director of Archaeological Survey of India to file their response in 4 weeks to the details provided by petitioners on the issue of Rama Setu as a national monument and to specify why other alignments which would not damage Rama Setu can be considered to protect the monument. (Court noted that no reasons in project reports, were adduced as to why other alignments were not evaluated so as not to damage Rama Setu â a specific injunction which was recorded by A Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee Report of 1956).
Many details of evidences related to Rama Setu or Adam's Bridge were also cited in the Court order. The authoritative version of the court order will be forwarded as soon as it becomes available.
The case was posted for the next hearing on July 23, 2007.
Here are some news reports which provide the usual skewed p-sec media perspective, together with a background on issues deliberated.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, July 23 is too late!!!! The dredging, dispite all the protests, continue, and have already completed 9% of the progress, as per the project website! Why could the court not issue a stay till the next hearing?