Ram Sethu not a place of worship: Centre
New Delhi, Oct 14: Giving a new twist to the Sethusamudram project controversy, the government has contended before the Supreme Court that the mythological Rama Setu bridge is not an "essential" and "integral" part of Hindu religion.
"It has not been proved undoubtedly to be the belief of the Hindu community that Lord Rama did not himself break the bridge. Nor has it been established that whatever remains of the Rama Setu as a piece of worship is an essential and integral part of the Hindu religion," the UPA government said in its written submission.
The government stand assumes importance as on the last hearing on July 30 it had assured the court that it was considering the possibility of pushing the project through an alternative alignment to avoid any damage to 'Rama Setu' for which an expert committee has been set up.
However, it persisted with the argument that Rama Setu or Adams Bridge was broken by Lord Rama while returning from Sri Lanka and as such "anything broken could not be worshipped".
It said that the opponents of the project have not proved that Rama Setu forms an "integral" and "essential" part of Hindu religion and has to be protected.
"A religious belief or practise which is not an essential and integral part of the religion is not protected by Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution", the Centre said and quoted various previous judgements of the apex court to drive home its point.
Following the government assurance in July that it was considering an alternative alignment for the project, the Prime Minister Office had set up an expert committee headed by noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy Research Institute, to look into the suggestion.
Though no time-frame has been set for the Committee to place its report, the apex court had said that it will consider the findings of the panel before giving its verdict and had allowed the contesting parties to file written submissions if they wished.
In September last year, the Centre had to withdraw its two controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Lord Rama and opposing claims that the Rama Setu was a man-made bridge.
The Centre once again attacked the AIADMK Chief J Jayalalithaa for opposing the project on religious grounds saying that the environmental clearance to the project was given by her government.
It said that Jayalalithaa's change in stand was politically motivated despite the fact that in the 2001 Assembly elections she came to power by promising in the election manifesto that the project would be implemented.
"Now at this point of time to say that the Adams Bridge should not be cut is nothing but a politically motivated submission," the Centre said.
Following the government assurance in July that it was considering an alternative alignment for the project, the Prime Minister Office had set up an expert committee headed by noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy Research Institute, to look into the suggestion.
Though no time-frame has been set for the Committee to place its report, the apex court had said that it will consider the findings of the panel before giving its verdict and had allowed the contesting parties to file written submissions if they wished.
In September last year, the Centre had to withdraw its two controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Lord Rama and opposing claims that the Rama Setu was a man-made bridge.
The Centre once again attacked the AIADMK Chief J Jayalalithaa for opposing the project on religious grounds saying that the environmental clearance to the project was given by her government.
It said that Jayalalithaa's change in stand was politically motivated despite the fact that in the 2001 Assembly elections she came to power by promising in the election manifesto that the project would be implemented.
"Now at this point of time to say that the Adams Bridge should not be cut is nothing but a politically motivated submission," the Centre said.
"It has not been proved undoubtedly to be the belief of the Hindu community that Lord Rama did not himself break the bridge. Nor has it been established that whatever remains of the Rama Setu as a piece of worship is an essential and integral part of the Hindu religion," the UPA government said in its written submission.
The government stand assumes importance as on the last hearing on July 30 it had assured the court that it was considering the possibility of pushing the project through an alternative alignment to avoid any damage to 'Rama Setu' for which an expert committee has been set up.
However, it persisted with the argument that Rama Setu or Adams Bridge was broken by Lord Rama while returning from Sri Lanka and as such "anything broken could not be worshipped".
It said that the opponents of the project have not proved that Rama Setu forms an "integral" and "essential" part of Hindu religion and has to be protected.
"A religious belief or practise which is not an essential and integral part of the religion is not protected by Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution", the Centre said and quoted various previous judgements of the apex court to drive home its point.
Following the government assurance in July that it was considering an alternative alignment for the project, the Prime Minister Office had set up an expert committee headed by noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy Research Institute, to look into the suggestion.
Though no time-frame has been set for the Committee to place its report, the apex court had said that it will consider the findings of the panel before giving its verdict and had allowed the contesting parties to file written submissions if they wished.
In September last year, the Centre had to withdraw its two controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Lord Rama and opposing claims that the Rama Setu was a man-made bridge.
The Centre once again attacked the AIADMK Chief J Jayalalithaa for opposing the project on religious grounds saying that the environmental clearance to the project was given by her government.
It said that Jayalalithaa's change in stand was politically motivated despite the fact that in the 2001 Assembly elections she came to power by promising in the election manifesto that the project would be implemented.
"Now at this point of time to say that the Adams Bridge should not be cut is nothing but a politically motivated submission," the Centre said.
Following the government assurance in July that it was considering an alternative alignment for the project, the Prime Minister Office had set up an expert committee headed by noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy Research Institute, to look into the suggestion.
Though no time-frame has been set for the Committee to place its report, the apex court had said that it will consider the findings of the panel before giving its verdict and had allowed the contesting parties to file written submissions if they wished.
In September last year, the Centre had to withdraw its two controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Lord Rama and opposing claims that the Rama Setu was a man-made bridge.
The Centre once again attacked the AIADMK Chief J Jayalalithaa for opposing the project on religious grounds saying that the environmental clearance to the project was given by her government.
It said that Jayalalithaa's change in stand was politically motivated despite the fact that in the 2001 Assembly elections she came to power by promising in the election manifesto that the project would be implemented.
"Now at this point of time to say that the Adams Bridge should not be cut is nothing but a politically motivated submission," the Centre said.
