Supreme Court won’t hear Setu plea early

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to have an early hearing on an application from BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, seeking the Centre’s response on whether it has taken a decision not to cut through “Ram Setu” in implementing the Sethusamudram canal project.

A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices A.K. Sikri and R. Banumathi declined BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s request for urgent listing when Dr Swamy pleaded for an early hearing of the case. Dr Swamy said that the Centre had already taken a decision and that the matter should be disposed of after recording the Centre’s stand. The CJI said the matter will be listed as and when the Centre communicated its decision.

Dr Swamy, in his application, said that after orders were reserved in 2008 on petitions challenging the project, the Pachauri committee looked into the question of an alternative alignment.

He said this committee entrusted the task to the National Institute of Oceanography of exploring the feasibility of the project and it said the project in the alternative alignment of 4A was not feasible.

The UPA government had informed the court that it had not accepted Dr Pachauri’s report and that the project would be implemented in the original alignment of 6.

According to Dr Swamy, the NDA government has now revised its stand and had taken a decision to not touch the Ram Setu which would virtually mean that the project has to be scrapped.

According to Dr Pachauri committee’s report, the consequences of carrying out the Sethusamudram project in alignment 4A is so disastrous for India that no one with any sense of responsibility / conscience could thereafter proceed with the project at all.

Finding fault with the Pachauri committee, the Centre had said, “Even though the data did not support blocking the project from progressing and the evidence showed the benefits from the project, the committee arbitrarily and contrary to its own studies concluded that the project is not viable. Clearly, the recommendation of the committee is not tenable and is not supported by scientific data and by environmental studies commissioned by the committee itself. If the measures suggested for mitigation and post-commencement are undertaken the project can be taken up for implementation.”