Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a petition filed by former Rajya Sabha lawmaker Subramanian Swamy requesting the  Centre to declare the Ram Setu as a national historic monument.

A CJI D Y Chandrachud led took note of the submissions made on behalf of the UoI that the government was yet to make a decision on the matter.

Swamy claimed that the Centre has been delaying this for more than nine years, in response to which the bench said that "we will list it early".

On January 19, 2023 Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had informed the Supreme Court that the Ministry of Culture has started the procedure of considering Ram Setu for national heritage designation. Further, he also informed the Court that petitioner Subramanian Swamy could file a representation with the Ministry. The bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, had recorded the SG's submissions in its order and permitted Swamy to submit any new information or communication he wished. The bench also granted Swamy the right to petition the Court if he is unsatisfied with the decision on his representation.

On January 12, 2023, the Court rejected Dr Subramanian Swamy's request to issue a summons against the Cabinet Secretary after the Central Government failed to respond to a petition seeking a declaration of Ram Setu as a national historic monument.
After Swamy addressed the matter, a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud informed the matter and stated that the Centre was expected to file its response by December 12, 2022.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had submitted that the matter might be kept for February first week as the issue was under consideration and the discussions are going on. Court had agreed to the same.

Swamy highlighted the issue of the Ram Setu being declared a national monument in his PIL opposing the controversial Sethusamudram Ship Channel project. The PIL was filed before the Madras High Court.

Ram Setu, 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. According to the ancient Indian Sanskrit epic Ramayana, penned by Valmiki, Lord Rama built the bridge to reach Lanka and save his wife Sita from the Rakshasa ruler, Ravana."

The apex court transferred the plea before itself in 2007 and stayed work on the Sethu Samudram project. Subsequently, the 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 Setu.

In his appeal, Dr Swamy asked the Supreme Court to issue an order directing the Union of India to commission the Geological Survey of India and the Archeological Survey of India to perform a complete survey of Ram Setu, claiming that it is an ancient monument of national significance.

The Supreme Court gave the Centre six weeks to clarify its position on the Ram Setu on November 13, 2019. It had also given Swamy the right to go to court if the Center's response was not filed.

In August, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had submitted before Justices Chandrachud and Bopanna that the centre will take stock of the situation and determine whether a counter needs to be filed because two or three affidavits had already been produced in the matter.

Swamy, on the other hand, told the court that the affidavits were produced in a previous case involving Sethu Samudram and not the current one.

Case Title: Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India