Read Time: 05 minutes
Swamy's plea has also sought a direction to engage the Geological Survey of India and Archeological Survey of India to conduct a detailed survey with respect to Ram Setu stating that it is an ancient monument of national importance.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to consider the request made by Dr. Subramanian Swamy to issue a summon against the Cabinet Secretary after the Central Government failed to file their response in a plea seeking direction to declare Ram Setu as a national heritage monument.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud informed its decision after Swamy mentioned the matter and stated that the Centre was supposed to file its response by December 12.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the matter may be kept for February first week as the issue is under consideration and the discussions are going on. Court acceded to the same.
Swamy raised the issue of declaration of the Ram Sethu as a national monument in his PIL against the controversial Sethusamudram Ship Channel project. The PIL was initiated before Madras High Court.
Ram Sethu, also known as Adam's bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, and Mannar Island, off the north-western coast of Sri Lanka.
The apex court transferred the plea before itself in 2007 and stayed work on the Sethu Samudram project. Subsequently, the Center informed the court that owing to the "socio-economic disadvantages" of the project, it was willing to explore another route to the shipping channel project without damaging the Ram Sethu.
Dr. Swamy in his petition sought the Top Court to pass an order and direct the Union of India to engage the Geological Survey of India and Archeological Survey of India to conduct a detailed survey concerning Ram Setu stating that it is an ancient monument of national importance.
On November 13, 2019, the apex court had granted the Centre six weeks to clarify its stand on the Ram Sethu. It had also granted Swamy the liberty to approach the court if the response of the Center was not filed.
In August, before a bench of Justices Chandrachud and Bopanna, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had submitted before the court that court will take stock of the situation and ascertain whether a counter must be filed as two or three affidavits had already been filed in the matter.
Swamy, however, had told the court that the affidavits had been filed in the disposed of matter pertaining to Sethu Samudram and not the present one.
Case Title: Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India
Please Login or Register
