Authors"s Home Page  

Comprehensive Collection of India News, Articles, Columns, Analysis and Research Papers. Facts about India, Indian History, Culture, Yoga, Meditation & Ayurveda and more…

This article about:
Ramar Bridge Madras High Court Verdict, Rama Sethu HC

iVarta.com:
All about India News, Views and Analysis | Business, Social and Community Networking | Free Classifieds, Yellow Pages Directory and Website Listing and more...

 Feedback

The Madras High Court gave a historic verdict yesterday by requesting the government of India to let them know as to whether the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) could be implemented without affecting the Ramar Palam / Adam"s Bridge.

Making it clear that the court would not stay the implementation of the project, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice P Jyothimani said: "We are not inclined to grant any interim relief at this stage, so as to hamper the project work. We leave it to the Union of India to decide whether the cutting of the Adam"s Bridge/Ramar Palam could be postponed till the issues involved in these petitions are considered by this court and are finally disposed of."

In my view the most important part and dimension of the High Court verdict lay in its exact and correct appreciation of the words "Monument" and "Archaeological Site" used in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. The Section 2(d) of this Act defines archaeological site and remains as follows:

"Archaeological site and remains means any area which CONTAINS or is REASONABLY BELIEVED TO CONTAIN ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance which have been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes:

1. Such portion of land adjoining the area as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving it, and

2. The means of access to, and convenient inspection of the area;

Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 2(D) in letter and spirit cited above, the Hon"ble Chief Justice AP Shah, during the course of the judicial proceeding relating to the writ petitions of Dr. Subramanian Swami, President of the Janata Party and Shri Ram Gopal, President of the Hindu Munnani, observed as follows: "Be it man-made or natural, the Ramar Setu should not be touched."

The First Bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice P Jyothimani, directed the Union of India to file a counter-affidavit, "explaining as to whether any study has been undertaken by the archaeological or any other department in respect of the Ramar Palam / Adam"s Bridge."

The Judges also sought to know whether the Ramar Bridge could be regarded as a national monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments (Protection) Act 1958. The Bench said: "The Union of India may also explain as to whether the project can be implemented without affecting the Adam"s Bridge/Ramar Palam, resorting to some other routes as discussed by previous committees."

Pointing out that the prayer of the petitioners was the implementation of the project without affecting the bridge, the Judges said, "according to them it is a national monument."

Seeking to distinguish the earlier writ petitions, which were dismissed by the court, the Bench said the issue in those petitions was whether the project would cause environmental damage and degradation in the region.

As for the NEERI"s report on the project, the First Bench said the report did not discuss whether any other route was possible in order to avoid the cutting of Adam"s Bridge. Referring to Additional Solicitor-General V T Gopalan"s stand that the structure was not man-made but a natural formation, the Bench said, "be that as it may. The definition in the 1958 Act (Section 2D) it is apparent that a national monument has a very wide meaning, and included stone, river, etc." Citing several experts" accounts and historical evidence, the Bench said there was ample evidence to the existence of a bridge in the project area. The Bench then adjourned the matter to 23 July for further proceedings, and impleaded the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) president, K Veeramani, also as a party to the proceedings.

The mute and humble myriad millions of Hindus in India and abroad besieged, choked and asphyxiated by the combined onslaught of the pseudo-secular might of the anti-Hindu UPA Government on one hand and the forces of Islam, Christianity, Marxism, Nehruvian Pseudo-Secularism, Super-Sonia Pseudo-Sadistic Secularism and Manmohan Singh"s Nerveless Nervous Pseudo-Secularism on the other, owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Chief Justice AP Shah and Justice P Jyothimani of the Madras High Court for having made the historic reference that the Ram Setu would fully, eminently and unequivocally qualify for being declared as a National Monument under Section 2D of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958.

Public men who confess uncertainty are usually derided. There is such a thing as having the courage of one"s doubts. Not all issues have two sides. Some have one and a quarter. Some have six sides. Judges are often constrained to decide on a wing and a prayer. Our Legislators and Parliamentarians are constantly voting blind. Columnists and journalists like me deal mostly in what Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) called "NOTES" by puzzled men. Better to trust the man who is frequently in error rather than the one who is never in doubt.

In such a nebulous, confused and contradictory situation, the Madras High Court has come out with a landmark declaration on Ram Setu and giving the following message in spirit, though not in letter, to the Islam-Embracing, Christianity-Coveting and Hindu-Hating Government of India: "You should not forget or ignore the fact that the Ram Setu is as holy to the Hindus as the Wailing Wall to the Jews, the Vatican to the Roman Catholics, Mecca to the Muslims and Bodh Gaya to the Buddhists."

No one can dispute that in giving this historic verdict which will live in the pages of history for ages to come, long after the small, petty and wicked anti-Hindu men in the UPA Government today have been washed away by the Tsunami of time, the names of Hon"ble Chief Justice AP Shah and Hon"ble Justice P Jyothimani will ring across centuries as incomparable men who added a great lustre and glory to the Madras High Court as a Temple of Time Defying Justice. Indeed, they have given a concrete shape and a noble mien to the following words of the great American Justice Benjamin N Cardozo: "The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their course and pass the Judges by."

Perfect justice is a mirage. In the pursuit of the illusion of perfect justice, we should take care not to jeopardize the justice that lies within our grasp. Voltare rightly said "The best is the enemy of the good."

To sum up: Perfect justice, NO; attainable justice, YES. The Madras High Court by its great verdict yesterday has ensured just that in the manner and measure required.

Seeing the regal manner in which the Hon"ble Chief Justice AP Shah has viewed the transcendental holiness of the judicial proceedings relating to the Ram Setu issue, I can pay my humble tribute to him only in the words of New York Times which paid the following tribute to Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1962: "History will find greatness in Felix Frankfurter as a Judge, not because of the results he reached but because of his attitude toward the process of decision. His guiding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble they end, and above all, dedication to the Court as an institution."

In conclusion, the Madras High Court has given the following message not only to the UPA government but to all the Anti-Hindu Politicians and Political Parties of India: "There is no political virtue in evasion of concrete facts. No political courage in carefully planned and selected prejudice, regional or national. No political or social salvation in cultural, religious or spiritual ignorance."

V Sundaram, IAS, Retd.

       Send your views to author

Do you wish to reach our readers? submit your guest column

Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article (Ramar Bridge Madras High Court Verdict, Rama Sethu HC) are the authors own and not of this website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this article (Ramar Bridge Madras High Court Verdict, Rama Sethu HC). This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or web listing page URL) without the prior permission from us and the author.