Day 2 of the Finale: Tussle between the Bench and Setu Protection advocates
On Second day of the hearing in the sethusamudram case, various senior counsels submitted before the Supreme Court bench that Rama Sethu is of a matter of faith for Hindus, and therefore scope of the court is limited to deciding whether or not it falls under the article 25 of the law.
On his part, the bench and particularly Justice R.V. Raveendran posed whether religious beliefs should be allowed to impede modernisation and development of the country.
Verbal arguments between Justice Raveenran and senior advocates Sorabji, C.S. Vaidyanathan, and K. Parasaran were the highlight of the day.
New Delhi, May 6 : On the second day of hearing arguments in the batch of petitions filed against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for Hindu Munani, argued how there was a need to adopt a balanced approach between the two facets of public interests — religious belief and developmental projects. (Express)
Earlier during the day, senior advocate and former Attorney General of India Soli Sorbajee appearing before the Bench, led by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, said the structure had acquired a special significance amongst Hindus and any such action that results in impairment or even partial destruction of structure would amount to violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution (right to freedom of religion).
“Religious feelings of the people are to be respected and not offended. It is the belief of Hindus that Ramar Sethu was constructed by Lord Rama and his followers who crossed the bridge to Lanka and retrieved Sita from the clutches of the demon Ravan. That indeed is the essential theme of the Ramayana, which is an article of faith with the Hindus.”
Mr. Sorabjee, appearing for S. Kalyanaraman in the Ramar Sethu case, said: “The issue before the court is not whether this belief can be historically or scientifically established. The court cannot sit in judgment on that belief. The court’s role is to determine whether this belief is genuinely or conscientiously held over a period of time by Hindus and if that be so it falls within the ambit of the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25.”
If worship and rituals were performed over a long period, these would get constitutional protection and the court could not interfere with it, he said.
Intervening, Justice R.V. Raveendran said: “Here it is not a question of rituals or worship. This principle can’t be extended to something which is under water. The length, width and size will matter. They [government] are not demolishing Ramar Sethu. They are saying only 300 metres of it would be cut. Will this change or affect the sanctity of the entire structure? Even trees are worshipped in this country. What is the philosophy and principle you are trying to say?”
Mr. Sorabjee said: “Don’t take extreme positions. We are not concerned with hill, mountain or lake. For over 1,500 years Ramar Sethu is in the minds of the people. Even the committee of eminent persons had said that this belief is deeply ingrained in the minds of the people. It is the belief of the country that matters. One has to see the circumstances and threat in the minds of those who hold that belief. Any object, however, trivial it may be, if it is connected with people’s religious belief it has to be protected.”
“Ramar Sethu has acquired a special significance amongst the Hindus. Consequently, any state action which results in impairment or even partial destruction of Ramar Sethu and leads to extinction or diminution of the right to worship at Ramar Sethu as at present is per se violative of the guarantee of freedom of religion.”
Justice Raveendran of The Bench questioned Sorbajee: “Hindus worship Bhoomata (Earth goddess)... the entire Govardhan hill near Mathura is worshiped. Can you say that no structure can be constructed there?”
“As people consider even earth as mother and worship it; does it mean there should be no construction on it? They even worship the Himalayas, does that mean no stone can be removed from there?” asked the bench.
To which, the former Attorney General replied, that in such cases, the guiding factor would be the religious belief of the community and it could not be historically or scientifically established.
After the Bench almost pushed him to a corner by citing examples of dams built on rivers like Ganga and Narmada, which too are worshiped, the senior advocate replied, “We are not concerned with the outlandish example of mountains, rivers, trees. We are concerned with Rama Setu,” He stressed that “the court’s role is to determine whether aforesaid belief is genuinely or conscientiously held over a period of time by Hindus, and if that be so, it falls within the ambit of freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25”.
“How will it make a difference if 300 metres of the Ram Setu is cut (to make the passage for the ships)?” Justice Raveendran asked.
Major reply to the poser of the bench came from senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, who said: “It will destroy the fundamental character of the bridge. A bridge is a bridge because it joins two land masses. If a part of this is destroyed, it will no longer be a bridge.”
To make himself clear, he cited the example of judicial independence.
“The court decides all cases on its merit. If it is provided that courts will decide 99.99 percent of cases on its merit but it will decide the remaining cases as per the government directions, will there be any judicial independence left?” Vaidyanathan asked.
Soli Sorabjee added that, unless found mitigating with public order or morality, a religious belief cannot even be subjected to any restriction for the sake of “public interest” as the constitutional freedom of speech and expression is subjective.
Sorabjee pointed out to the bench that freedom of religion also implies freedom to practice various rites and rituals associated with it and state has no authority to interfere with or ban those practices.
“It cannot be seriously questioned that it is the genuine and conscientious religious belief of the Hindus that the Ram Setu was constructed by Lord Ram and his followers, who crossed over the bridge to Sri Lanka and rescued Sita from the clutches of demon king Ravan. That indeed is the essential theme of the Ramayana, which is an article of faith for Hindus,” he added.
“The issue before this court is not whether this belief can be historically or scientifically established. The court cannot sit in judgement over beliefs.
“The court’s role is to determine if the belief about the Ram Setu is conscientiously held over a period of time by Hindus and, if that be so, it falls within the ambit of the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25,” he added.
Pointing out that the Ram Setu is worshipped by Hindus at Rameshwaram, Sorabjee said: “Any state action, which results in impairment or even partial destruction of the Ram Setu, would lead to extinction or diminution of their right to worship the Ram Setu and it would violate their constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” said Sorabjee, summing up his argument.
Senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, who along with K. Parasaran is appearing for Hindu Munnai leader Rama Gopalan, dwelt on an alternative alignment for carrying out the Sethusamudram project. “It is the faith of Hindus that a bridge was constructed by Lord Rama. By destroying Ramar Sethu, the fundamental character of the bridge will be lost and it will no longer be called a bridge. In the case of a mountain or a river, even if something is done, it will not change its character. But if you demolish Sethu, it will cease to be a bridge.”
The project could be implemented by considering alignment 4 and the cost would also be cheaper than alignment 6 but this aspect was not at all considered (The Centre says there is no alternative to the existing alignment 6.)
As the court resumes its hearing Wednesday, it would be the turn of former central minister and Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy to present his argument in favour of protecting the Ram Setu. Mr. Vaidyanathan will also continue his arguments on Wednesday.
Thaindian News
The Hindu report
Indian Express
On his part, the bench and particularly Justice R.V. Raveendran posed whether religious beliefs should be allowed to impede modernisation and development of the country.
Verbal arguments between Justice Raveenran and senior advocates Sorabji, C.S. Vaidyanathan, and K. Parasaran were the highlight of the day.
New Delhi, May 6 : On the second day of hearing arguments in the batch of petitions filed against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for Hindu Munani, argued how there was a need to adopt a balanced approach between the two facets of public interests — religious belief and developmental projects. (Express)
Earlier during the day, senior advocate and former Attorney General of India Soli Sorbajee appearing before the Bench, led by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, said the structure had acquired a special significance amongst Hindus and any such action that results in impairment or even partial destruction of structure would amount to violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution (right to freedom of religion).
“Religious feelings of the people are to be respected and not offended. It is the belief of Hindus that Ramar Sethu was constructed by Lord Rama and his followers who crossed the bridge to Lanka and retrieved Sita from the clutches of the demon Ravan. That indeed is the essential theme of the Ramayana, which is an article of faith with the Hindus.”
Mr. Sorabjee, appearing for S. Kalyanaraman in the Ramar Sethu case, said: “The issue before the court is not whether this belief can be historically or scientifically established. The court cannot sit in judgment on that belief. The court’s role is to determine whether this belief is genuinely or conscientiously held over a period of time by Hindus and if that be so it falls within the ambit of the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25.”
If worship and rituals were performed over a long period, these would get constitutional protection and the court could not interfere with it, he said.
Intervening, Justice R.V. Raveendran said: “Here it is not a question of rituals or worship. This principle can’t be extended to something which is under water. The length, width and size will matter. They [government] are not demolishing Ramar Sethu. They are saying only 300 metres of it would be cut. Will this change or affect the sanctity of the entire structure? Even trees are worshipped in this country. What is the philosophy and principle you are trying to say?”
Mr. Sorabjee said: “Don’t take extreme positions. We are not concerned with hill, mountain or lake. For over 1,500 years Ramar Sethu is in the minds of the people. Even the committee of eminent persons had said that this belief is deeply ingrained in the minds of the people. It is the belief of the country that matters. One has to see the circumstances and threat in the minds of those who hold that belief. Any object, however, trivial it may be, if it is connected with people’s religious belief it has to be protected.”
“Ramar Sethu has acquired a special significance amongst the Hindus. Consequently, any state action which results in impairment or even partial destruction of Ramar Sethu and leads to extinction or diminution of the right to worship at Ramar Sethu as at present is per se violative of the guarantee of freedom of religion.”
Justice Raveendran of The Bench questioned Sorbajee: “Hindus worship Bhoomata (Earth goddess)... the entire Govardhan hill near Mathura is worshiped. Can you say that no structure can be constructed there?”
“As people consider even earth as mother and worship it; does it mean there should be no construction on it? They even worship the Himalayas, does that mean no stone can be removed from there?” asked the bench.
To which, the former Attorney General replied, that in such cases, the guiding factor would be the religious belief of the community and it could not be historically or scientifically established.
After the Bench almost pushed him to a corner by citing examples of dams built on rivers like Ganga and Narmada, which too are worshiped, the senior advocate replied, “We are not concerned with the outlandish example of mountains, rivers, trees. We are concerned with Rama Setu,” He stressed that “the court’s role is to determine whether aforesaid belief is genuinely or conscientiously held over a period of time by Hindus, and if that be so, it falls within the ambit of freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25”.
“How will it make a difference if 300 metres of the Ram Setu is cut (to make the passage for the ships)?” Justice Raveendran asked.
Major reply to the poser of the bench came from senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, who said: “It will destroy the fundamental character of the bridge. A bridge is a bridge because it joins two land masses. If a part of this is destroyed, it will no longer be a bridge.”
To make himself clear, he cited the example of judicial independence.
“The court decides all cases on its merit. If it is provided that courts will decide 99.99 percent of cases on its merit but it will decide the remaining cases as per the government directions, will there be any judicial independence left?” Vaidyanathan asked.
Soli Sorabjee added that, unless found mitigating with public order or morality, a religious belief cannot even be subjected to any restriction for the sake of “public interest” as the constitutional freedom of speech and expression is subjective.
Sorabjee pointed out to the bench that freedom of religion also implies freedom to practice various rites and rituals associated with it and state has no authority to interfere with or ban those practices.
“It cannot be seriously questioned that it is the genuine and conscientious religious belief of the Hindus that the Ram Setu was constructed by Lord Ram and his followers, who crossed over the bridge to Sri Lanka and rescued Sita from the clutches of demon king Ravan. That indeed is the essential theme of the Ramayana, which is an article of faith for Hindus,” he added.
“The issue before this court is not whether this belief can be historically or scientifically established. The court cannot sit in judgement over beliefs.
“The court’s role is to determine if the belief about the Ram Setu is conscientiously held over a period of time by Hindus and, if that be so, it falls within the ambit of the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25,” he added.
Pointing out that the Ram Setu is worshipped by Hindus at Rameshwaram, Sorabjee said: “Any state action, which results in impairment or even partial destruction of the Ram Setu, would lead to extinction or diminution of their right to worship the Ram Setu and it would violate their constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” said Sorabjee, summing up his argument.
Senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, who along with K. Parasaran is appearing for Hindu Munnai leader Rama Gopalan, dwelt on an alternative alignment for carrying out the Sethusamudram project. “It is the faith of Hindus that a bridge was constructed by Lord Rama. By destroying Ramar Sethu, the fundamental character of the bridge will be lost and it will no longer be called a bridge. In the case of a mountain or a river, even if something is done, it will not change its character. But if you demolish Sethu, it will cease to be a bridge.”
The project could be implemented by considering alignment 4 and the cost would also be cheaper than alignment 6 but this aspect was not at all considered (The Centre says there is no alternative to the existing alignment 6.)
As the court resumes its hearing Wednesday, it would be the turn of former central minister and Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy to present his argument in favour of protecting the Ram Setu. Mr. Vaidyanathan will also continue his arguments on Wednesday.
Thaindian News
The Hindu report
Indian Express
