‘Ram Setu’: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on Subramanian Swamy’s petition
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsThe Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre on former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy’s PIL seeking a direction to “expeditiously” decide his representation to declare ‘Ram Setu’ a national monument.
Asking the Centre to respond to Swamy’s petition, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.
Swamy has also demanded a survey by the Geological Survey of India & the Archaeological Survey of India in respect to Ram Setu as an Ancient Monument of National Importance.
Ram Setu is a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, also known as Rameswaram Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, and Mannar Island, off the north-western coast of Sri Lanka.
Swamy contended he had already won the first round of the litigation in which the Centre accepted the existence of Ram Setu. He said the Minister concerned had called a meeting in 2017 to consider his demand but nothing happened.
He has demanded the Ram Setu to be declared a national monument in his PIL against the controversial Setusamudram Ship Channel Project, initiated by the UPA-I government.
In 2007, the top court stayed work for the project and later the Centre said it had considered the “socio-economic disadvantages” of the project and was willing to explore another route to the shipping channel project without damaging Ram Setu.
The Setusamudram Shipping Channel Project has been facing protests from some political parties, environmentalists and certain Hindu religious groups. Under the project, an 83-km-long deep water channel was to be created, linking Mannar with Palk Strait, by extensive dredging and removal of limestone shoals.
The top court had earlier pulled up the government for dragging its feet in the matter.
“Why are you dragging your feet?” it had asked the Centre’s counsel after he sought time to get instructions and file its response.