Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has asked the Union of India to file its reply in the plea filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy which seeks to declare Ram Setu as a national heritage monument.

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.

When the matter was taken up today, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli was informed by Dr. Swamy, who appeared in person, that UOI had not filed its reply to his plea till now.

"UOI has failed to file its affidavit. The matter is pending for 8 years", he told the Court.

Accordingly, Justice Chandrachud asked ASG Madhvi Divan, appearing before the bench, to file the reply before the next date of hearing.

Dr Swamy is being assisted by Advocate Satya Sabharwal in the matter.

On the last date of hearing, Dr. Swamy had asked the court to direct the Center to file a counter taking a stand on the issue.

Swamy had raised the issue of declaration of Ram Sethu as a national monument in his PIL against the controversial Sethusamudram Ship Channel project. The PIL was initiated before Madras High Court.

The apex court transferred the plea before itself in 2007 and stayed work for the project on the Sethu Samudram project. Subsequently, Center had 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 has 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 with respect to Ram Setu as it is an ancient monument of national importance.

On November 13, 2019, the apex court had granted Center six weeks to clarify its stand on the Ram Sethu. It had also granted Swamy 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 he 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