07-23-2008, 10:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In comments that triggered a fresh controversy over the Sethusamudram project, the <b>Centre on Wednesday invoked in the Supreme Court a Tamil version of Ramayana to make a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the mythical Rama Sethu.</b>
Asserting that the government wants to go ahead with the project, senior advocate Fali S Nariman attacked the opponents of the project for raising matters of religion and faith to oppose it.
Appearing for the Centre, he said those who have relied on scriptures of faith in their attempt to block the venture should also consider other aspects of faith.
He referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to make a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Sethu so that nobody should come from Lanka.
"Lord Rama destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed," Nariman asserted before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.
The senior advocate, who was countering the arguments of anti-project petitioners that destruction of Rama Sethu would affect the faith of people, said, "We are not destroying any bridge. Everything on the project is being done with great circumspection."
"If we have gone wrong we will correct it. The idea is to go ahead with the project. We have to see there is no violation of law," the noted jurist said.
Though the bench clarified that at the moment it was averse to entering into any debate whether Rama Sethu or Adams Bridge was man-made or not, Nariman said, "If you are going to rely on faith, go into other aspects of the faith also."
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/23sethu1.htm
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal suggested to senior counsel F S Nariman appearing for the Union of India (UoI) that the government should do some balancing act between faith and biosphere and must not hurt the former even if a little damage is caused to the latter.
Justice Raveendran also suggested that the government should not try to create an issue where there is none.
He also told Mr Nariman that the situation would have been different had there been no alternative alignment but when number of alignments/alternatives are available why to insist on demolishing Ram Setu.
Mr Nariman agreed to the suggestion of the apex court and assured the latter that he will advise the government to look into the same seriously, while contending that when no one goes to worship the place, it ceases to be a place of worship.
The court, however, said if faith of the people is involved little diversion in the route of the Setusamudram Canal, which will link Rameshwaram coast to Sri Lanka and is likely to reduce the navigation time considerably, is desirable.
The Supreme Court also suggested to the UoI to consider whether little diversion will be appropriate for the government ''scientifically, technically, economically and most important, politically.'' Earlier, counsel for the petitioners, who include former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha, concluded their arguments while seeking declaration from the Court that Ram Setu is a national heritage and therefore should not be demolished or destroyed.
According to the petitioner, eight alignments are available and the government is insisting on taking the route which will involve demolition of the Ram Setu without any justification and the Archaeological Survey of India has not caried out any scientific study till date to ascertain whether it is manmade or a natural formation.
http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=...s&id=89855<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asserting that the government wants to go ahead with the project, senior advocate Fali S Nariman attacked the opponents of the project for raising matters of religion and faith to oppose it.
Appearing for the Centre, he said those who have relied on scriptures of faith in their attempt to block the venture should also consider other aspects of faith.
He referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to make a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Sethu so that nobody should come from Lanka.
"Lord Rama destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed," Nariman asserted before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.
The senior advocate, who was countering the arguments of anti-project petitioners that destruction of Rama Sethu would affect the faith of people, said, "We are not destroying any bridge. Everything on the project is being done with great circumspection."
"If we have gone wrong we will correct it. The idea is to go ahead with the project. We have to see there is no violation of law," the noted jurist said.
Though the bench clarified that at the moment it was averse to entering into any debate whether Rama Sethu or Adams Bridge was man-made or not, Nariman said, "If you are going to rely on faith, go into other aspects of the faith also."
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/23sethu1.htm
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal suggested to senior counsel F S Nariman appearing for the Union of India (UoI) that the government should do some balancing act between faith and biosphere and must not hurt the former even if a little damage is caused to the latter.
Justice Raveendran also suggested that the government should not try to create an issue where there is none.
He also told Mr Nariman that the situation would have been different had there been no alternative alignment but when number of alignments/alternatives are available why to insist on demolishing Ram Setu.
Mr Nariman agreed to the suggestion of the apex court and assured the latter that he will advise the government to look into the same seriously, while contending that when no one goes to worship the place, it ceases to be a place of worship.
The court, however, said if faith of the people is involved little diversion in the route of the Setusamudram Canal, which will link Rameshwaram coast to Sri Lanka and is likely to reduce the navigation time considerably, is desirable.
The Supreme Court also suggested to the UoI to consider whether little diversion will be appropriate for the government ''scientifically, technically, economically and most important, politically.'' Earlier, counsel for the petitioners, who include former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha, concluded their arguments while seeking declaration from the Court that Ram Setu is a national heritage and therefore should not be demolished or destroyed.
According to the petitioner, eight alignments are available and the government is insisting on taking the route which will involve demolition of the Ram Setu without any justification and the Archaeological Survey of India has not caried out any scientific study till date to ascertain whether it is manmade or a natural formation.
http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=...s&id=89855<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->