07-30-2008, 01:42 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>UPA flip-flops on Ram Setu in SCÂ </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
After claiming that Lord Ram was the "destroyer" of the Ram Setu, the Centre has again gone back and questioned the very historicity of the bridge. The flip-flop became evident in the Supreme Court on Tuesday with <b>the Centre suggesting that it was a mistake to withdraw its earlier affidavit denying the existence of Lord Ram.</b>Â
<b>Special counsel for the Centre and senior advocate Fali S Nariman informed the court that except for the objectionable paragraph that doubted the Ramayan and the characters (including Lord Ram) mentioned in the mythological text, the Centre stood by the remaining portion of its affidavit, which doubts the historicity of the Ram Setu and describes it as a sand-and-coral formation.</b>
The latest submission came within a week after the Centre admitted the existence of Lord Ram by suggesting that the Ram Setu was broken by Lord Ram himself and that the structure was not man-made but "superman-made". Quoting from the affidavit discarded by the Centre in September last, Nariman said, "We take the entire blame for withdrawal of the affidavit since people reacted in a certain manner." He went to suggest Ram Setu could not be considered a national monument.
The three-Bench, headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, expressed reservations on accepting arguments based on an affidavit withdrawn from the court.<b> "You did not say we are withdrawing paragraph 20 (which denied existence of the Ramayan)...You withdrew the entire affidavit."</b>
Responding to the court's proposal to re-file the affidavit, Nariman said, "The assertion of the Centre that it (Setu) is not a monument does not get diluted by the affidavit withdrawal."
Interestingly, what paled the Centre's submission was its parallel determination to study alternative routes. The court had asked the Centre for its readiness to explore alternative alignments of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project since the main opposition to the existing alignment stemmed from the destruction of the alleged Ram Setu or Adams Bridge, a symbol of Hindu faith.
The court was informed that a decision in this regard would be available by Thursday. Nariman said,<b> "I have written to the Prime Minister. I may get the response in a day or two."</b>
According to the Centre, the power to declare any monument a national monument rests solely with Parliament. This is a delegated responsibility under Article 57C of the Constitution. Whether an ancient monument is of national importance is entirely left to Parliament to decide and, to this extent, the demand by several petitioners to declare it a national monument cannot be entertained by courts, he submitted.
The petitioners, who resumed the arguments in reply to the Centre's assertions, assailed the project for failing to comply with requisite environmental safeguards. Senior advocate Sriram Panchu argued that the project had received clearance under the Air and Water Act alone, while the environmental impact assessment (EIA) clearance entails several clearances considering the fact that the area where the project is to be built is in the Gulf of Mannar, which is the largest reserve of marine biosphere.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moron Singh will come up with his another nonsense.
This whole episode show, these government lawyers are bunch of clueless jokers, just reflects people who had hired them.
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
After claiming that Lord Ram was the "destroyer" of the Ram Setu, the Centre has again gone back and questioned the very historicity of the bridge. The flip-flop became evident in the Supreme Court on Tuesday with <b>the Centre suggesting that it was a mistake to withdraw its earlier affidavit denying the existence of Lord Ram.</b>Â
<b>Special counsel for the Centre and senior advocate Fali S Nariman informed the court that except for the objectionable paragraph that doubted the Ramayan and the characters (including Lord Ram) mentioned in the mythological text, the Centre stood by the remaining portion of its affidavit, which doubts the historicity of the Ram Setu and describes it as a sand-and-coral formation.</b>
The latest submission came within a week after the Centre admitted the existence of Lord Ram by suggesting that the Ram Setu was broken by Lord Ram himself and that the structure was not man-made but "superman-made". Quoting from the affidavit discarded by the Centre in September last, Nariman said, "We take the entire blame for withdrawal of the affidavit since people reacted in a certain manner." He went to suggest Ram Setu could not be considered a national monument.
The three-Bench, headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, expressed reservations on accepting arguments based on an affidavit withdrawn from the court.<b> "You did not say we are withdrawing paragraph 20 (which denied existence of the Ramayan)...You withdrew the entire affidavit."</b>
Responding to the court's proposal to re-file the affidavit, Nariman said, "The assertion of the Centre that it (Setu) is not a monument does not get diluted by the affidavit withdrawal."
Interestingly, what paled the Centre's submission was its parallel determination to study alternative routes. The court had asked the Centre for its readiness to explore alternative alignments of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project since the main opposition to the existing alignment stemmed from the destruction of the alleged Ram Setu or Adams Bridge, a symbol of Hindu faith.
The court was informed that a decision in this regard would be available by Thursday. Nariman said,<b> "I have written to the Prime Minister. I may get the response in a day or two."</b>
According to the Centre, the power to declare any monument a national monument rests solely with Parliament. This is a delegated responsibility under Article 57C of the Constitution. Whether an ancient monument is of national importance is entirely left to Parliament to decide and, to this extent, the demand by several petitioners to declare it a national monument cannot be entertained by courts, he submitted.
The petitioners, who resumed the arguments in reply to the Centre's assertions, assailed the project for failing to comply with requisite environmental safeguards. Senior advocate Sriram Panchu argued that the project had received clearance under the Air and Water Act alone, while the environmental impact assessment (EIA) clearance entails several clearances considering the fact that the area where the project is to be built is in the Gulf of Mannar, which is the largest reserve of marine biosphere.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moron Singh will come up with his another nonsense.
This whole episode show, these government lawyers are bunch of clueless jokers, just reflects people who had hired them.