When the affidavit of UOI was withdrawn on 14 Sept. 2007, Addl. Solicitor General made astatement before the Supreme Court that total respect for all religions and Hinduism in particular and respecting the religious sensibilities would submit fresh affidavits re-scrutinizing all aspects including change of alignment without destroying Rama Setu.
ASG also submitted to the Hon’ble SC that high democratic traditions will be followed responding to objections.
But this promise has NOT been kept. The committee appointed to gather objections and suggestions did NOT perform its functions transparently and its report is biased and does NOT reveal all the expert opinions and suggestions made. Why were the Geological Survey of India and National Institute of Oceanography not involved in project formulation studies?
Additional points in re the withdrawn affidavit, from Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s reply affidavit:
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
* When the UOI through the learned ASG, had given several assurances in writing and filed an Application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.9.07 seeking permission to withdraw their affidavit there was an expectation created that the UOI in implementing the Project would therefore not therefore damage or defile the Rama Setu and insult the Hindu religion and search for the an alternative alignment or project to serve the same objective through transparent consultation. These assurances were:
* First: that the UOI “is alive and conscious of religious sensibilities including the unique, ancient and holy text of Ramayana”. Second: that the “UOI is also keen that its decisions bind and bring the society together, rather than cause any disruption in the religious and social psyche of one true India”. Third: that “without any reservation, in spirit of inclusiveness and high democratic tradition, to consider a different point of view, withdraw the present affidavit to re-examine the entire matter”.
* It was on these explicit assurances, and on trust, that the Petitioner did not object to the withdrawal of the said counter- affidavit that contained some highly objectionable averments on Sri Rama, and Ramayana.
* This expectation of a different and conciliatory affidavit was fortified by the Respondent’s sworn affidavit on the Jallikattu question [in an Application for Modification of Court’s Order of 11.1.08 in I.A. 15 of 2008 in SLP No.11686 of 2007] before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, prior to listing of this instant Transfer Petition on 16.1.07 for further hearing. In that IA, the Tamil Nadu government on the basis of a police report [ SLP, p.28, paras. 4 to 6] took the stand that hurting religious sentiment would cause grave public disorder [Reply Affidavit p. 27-28, para.48].
These assurances read together created a right for the Petitioner to legitimately expect a different counter affidavit [(2008) 2 SCC 161, para 58&60]. That is, the UOI after re-examining the entire matter in light of the obvious public sentiment of reverence for the Rama Setu, and it’s sacred status in Hindu society, would decide on a ship channel alignment that would not hurt the religious sensibilities of the nearly 1 billion Hindus or commit any sacrilege on the holy text of Ramayana, and thereby avoid committing a crime under Section 295 of the IPC.
For UOI now to claim that a decision has been taken not to declare Rama Setu a national monumet since it does not meet the criteria, is an affront to the due process of law and tantamounts to misleading the Petitioners and the Hon’ble Court, apart from the public at large, since the issue of objectionable averments on Sri Rama, Ramayana and Rama Setu caused consternation among the public.
Regrettably these assurances given by ASG in the 14.09.07 Application of the UOI, have not been honoured because their fresh counter affidavit filed 29.2.08, after six months of internal deliberation, only reiterates blandly the earlier decision to go ahead with the Alignment No.6 to rupture the Rama Setu, commit sacrilege, and commit a criminal offence.
Instead, the same stale stand was re-iterated on a biased and malafide re-examination of the matter, done for the Respondents by a hand-picked so-called Committee of Eminent Experts, whose members’ objectivity and impartiality suffered from questions of conflict of interests and prejudicial behaviour [ ref: paras. 56-59 in Reply Affidavit]. An IA is pending on this matter.
An IA is also pending to implead Hon’ble TR Baalu as respondent. He was a respondent in the transferred case from Madras HC.
The direction of the Madras High Court required the Respondents to look at the investigations of “other concerned departments” (apart from Archaeological Survey of India) as well. No mention has so far been made by the UOI on this direction and a bland statement is made about 1958 Ancient Monuments and Protection Act.
Moreover, there have been repeated suggestions [e.g., of Planning Commission in 2000. Ref: Counter Affidavit, Vol. V, Annexure R-1/19, p. 11] that for completeness not only alternative Alignments should be evaluated but also alternative projects, such as rail or road expressways, to connect Tuticorin to Kolkata. This has not been done hence the choice of Alignment No.6 is arbitrary. The right to choose by government is not an arbitrary power [Tata Cellular, (1994) 6 SCC 651, paras.77 to 81]. The failure to consider alternative projects to meet the same objectives is also unreasonable and disproportional since a more drastic alternative has been chosen. This too, therefore, is not compliance with the directions of the MHC.
Merely referring to the issue of modified alignment 4 to the Prime Minister is a haphazard way of treating the concerns raised by the petitioners and ignoring other issues which have been submitted for directions by the Hon’ble Court — issues such as environmental dangers, nautical and economic falsifications, illegalities (related to both national and intenational laws), concerns of livelihood of fishermen, absence of review by national security agencies and clearance by Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board.
The alternatives to be evaluated by the UOI include the scrapping of the project and the SC may like to restrain UOI from proceeding with the project until all project alternatives are evauated and make the stay order on damaging Rama Setu absolute, extend the stay order to the entire mid-ocean Channel project close to the medial line between India and Srilanka’s historic waters.
Kalyan
Janamejayan's Weblog 