Author: Express News Service
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: May 7, 2008
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/story/306376.html
On the second day of hearing arguments in
the batch of petitions filed against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project,
the Supreme Court was again faced with the question of faith versus development.
Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for Hindu Munani, argued how there
was a need to adopt a balanced approach between the two facets of public interests
- religious belief and developmental projects. The submission came as he warned
the State from going ahead with a "wrong deed of authority", which
he feared, "will leave a deep wound in the minds of people". He
said any damage caused to the Ram Sethu (Adam's Bridge) might leave a permanent
scar on the minds of people, akin to the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.
Earlier during the day, senior advocate Soli
Sorbajee appearing before the Bench, led by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan,
said the structure had acquired a special significance amongst Hindus and
any such action that results in impairment or even partial destruction of
structure would amount to violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens
guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
"A religious belief which is genuinely
and conscientiously held over a long period of time by a substantial number
of adherents or followers of a particular religion becomes an integral part
of that religion and is entitled to protection under Article 25," he
argued.
The Bench questioned Sorbajee: "Hindus
worship Bhoomata (Earth goddess)... the entire Govardhan hill near Mathura
is worshiped. Can you say that no structure can be constructed there?"
Justice Raveendran asked.
To which, the former Attorney General replied,
that in such cases, the guiding factor would be the religious belief of the
community and it could not be historically or scientifically established.
After the Bench almost pushed him to a corner
by citing examples of dams built on rivers like Ganga and Narmada, which too
are worshiped, the senior advocate replied, "We are not concerned with
the outlandish example of mountains, rivers, trees. We are concerned with
Rama Setu," He stressed that "the court's role is to determine whether
aforesaid belief is genuinely or conscientiously held over a period of time
by Hindus, and if that be so, it falls within the ambit of freedom of religion
guaranteed by Article 25".
