On Day 2, it’s Sethu versus faith in SC

On the second day of hearing arguments in the batch of petitions filed against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project...

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.

Story continues below this ad

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”.