Date post: | 03-Sep-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | srini-kalyanaraman |
View: | 2,223 times |
Download: | 1 times |
1
Prayer to the court should to stop the project,
rejecting every submission made in the counter filed
by respondents on May 29, 2007 and to issue a writ
of mandamus directing Central Government to
declare Rama Setu as an ancient monument of
national importance
Supreme Court on sacred objects
Hon. Supreme Court’s observations given vide paragraph number 7 of its judgement
reported as S. Veerabadran Chettiar v. E. V. Ramaswami Naicker and others (AIR
1958 Supreme Court 1032) (as appearing on page 1035 of AIR 1958 Supreme Court) are reproduced as follows:
“…. Any object however trivial or destitute of real value in itself if regarded as
sacred by any class of persons would come within the meaning of the penal section
(295 of Indian Penal Code). Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order to
be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped. An object may be held sacred
by a class of persons without being worshipped by them. It is clear, therefore, that
the courts below were rather cynical in so lightly brushing aside the religious
susceptibilities of that class of persons to which the complainant claims to belong.
The section has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of
different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in
such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of
different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration
whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the court.”
In view of the principles stipulated in the Supreme Court’s above-mentioned
judgement, Ram Setu is a sacred object for Hindus within the meaning of section
295 of Indian Penal Code, and any action destroying, damaging or defiling the said
sacred object will insult the religious feelings of Hindus under section 295 of Indian Penal Code.
While matters of sacredness CANNOT be decided by science, it is noted that
in a Press meet on 2 June 2007, by Minister for Science and Technology,
reports of which have appeared and provided as Annexure 12, soil samples
will be made available to the public for testing. Until these tests are
completed, the Hon’ble Court should restrain the respondents from carrying
out any work which touches or damages Rama Setu (what the respondent
claims to be Adam’s Bridge). The Hon’ble Court may also direct the
appointment of an Advocate Commission to be assisted by a multi-
disciplinary team of experts to review the results of these tests and to
report on the religious susceptibilities of the people who consider the Rama
Setu a sacred pilgrimage site and a world heritage monument, exemplifying the quintessence of Bharatiya values.
2
PRAYER
In view of the facts stated and grounds pleaded hereinbelow, the
petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to grant any or all of the following prayers, each of which
is made without prejudice to the others:
1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
calling for the records pertaining to the decision of the Union
of India to undertake/proceed with the ‘Sethusamudram Ship
Canal Project’, and quash the said decision;
2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
calling for the records pertaining to the ‘Environmental
Clearance’ dated 31.03.2005 granted by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests to the Sethusamudram Ship Canal
Project, and quash the same;
3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
calling for the records pertaining to clearance/permission
granted to the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project under the
provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and quash
the same;
3
4) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing the respondents herein not to implement the
‘Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project’;
5) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing the Central Government to declare the ‘Ram Sethu’
as an ancient monument of national importance, under the
provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites
and Remains Act, 1958;
6) Pass such other and/or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in the present case.
It is submitted that the project as sought to be implemented by the
government cannot be allowed to continue. The petitioners are
seeking reliefs from this Hon’ble Court, interalia, on the following
grounds:-
GROUNDS
A. Because the Project has been conceptualized without taking
into account the likelihood of a Tsunami or its effects in a
manner that is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates the
fundamental right to equality under Article 14 and the right
to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Neither the EIA report by NEERI completed in
4
May/August 2004 nor the DPR by L&T/Ramboll for the Project
completed in February 2005 have taken into account the
likelihood or effects of a Tsunami despite the massive
destruction caused by the Tsunami of December 26, 2004.
Prof. Tad S. Murthy, a world-renowned Tsunami expert and a
former editor of Tsunami Effects Review, has pointed out that
the alignment of the mid-ocean channel is such that it will
funnel and amplify the wave from a Tsunami from South
East Asia so as to cause massive destruction to lives and
property on the Southern Kerala and Tamilnadu Coasts.
B. Because neither the EIA Report nor the DPR have undertaken
a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the Tsunami of
December 2004 on the sensitive Gulf of Mannar and Palk
Straits and Palk Bay region, in particular bathymetry (depth)
surveys, sedimentation effects and effects of ocean currents.
C. Because the precautionary principle has not been kept in
mind when giving environmental clearances for the Project
under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. In Vellore
Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647,
at page 658, this Hon’ble Court pointed out that “Where there
are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
Despite the fact that there is a serious likelihood of danger
to the unique habitat and the ecosystem of the Gulf of
Mannar from dredging and dumping of material from the
ocean floor to widen the channel to 300 metres wide and 12
metres deep, the Respondents are going ahead with the
Project without considering the serious environmental
5
degradation that may result. The endangered species in this
region include the dugong (sea cow), sea horses, five species
of marine turtles and whales and dolphins. There is also a
unique link species between vertebrates and invertebrates
called the Balano-glossus that is unique to the region. These
species thrive in the endangered habitats consisting of
mangrove forests and sea grasses surrounding the islands on
the Southern Coast of Tamilnadu which have been declared a
national park under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. UNESCO
has declared the Gulf of Mannar as a biosphere reserve
because it is a biodiversity hotspot and the Government of
India together with the Government of Tamilnadu have
confirmed this declaration of a biosphere reserve for
purposes of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Because, as a biosphere reserve declared by the Government of India and the Government of Tamilnadu, the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve is entitled to the protections contemplated by Chapter IV of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and no permit for activities destructive of wildlife such as those inherent in the Project may be granted except in order to protect wildlife.
D. Because there is considerable scientific evidence
accumulated that the Rama Setu is man-made. NEERI which
was mandated to examine this issue under the citing
guidelines of the Ministry of Environment and Forests has
simply proceeded on the basis that the Rama Setu is not man-
made. Article 51A(f) of the Constitution enjoins protection of
the cultural heritage of India. Therefore, it is respectfully
submitted that the Archaeological Survey of India is required
to determine under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958 as to
whether or not the Rama Setu is man-made. If it is man-
6
made, its origins certainly stretch back into antiquity more
than the 100 years required under the said Act. If so, it
would be fit and proper for this Hon’ble Court to stop the
project before it destroys the Rama Setu and to direct the
Archaeological Survey of India to have the Rama Setu
declared as an ancient monument or an archeological survey
as the case may be and to ensure that it gets all the
protection that such a monument requires.
E. Because the Project will certainly result in destruction of
endangered species such as dugongs, two varieties of
dolphins, certain turtles and certain species of whales in the
Gulf of Mannar region, which are all listed in Schedule I of
the Wildlife Protection Act and are entitled to protection
under the provisions of that Act.
F. Because even the Prime Minister’s Office has expressed
serious doubts about the advisability of the Project on
grounds of public safety from future Tsunamis and the
weaknesses in the EIA report, the techno-economic feasibility
study and the detailed project report.
G. Because the costs of the Project have already gone up
manifold from the Rs. 2,300 crores projected in the Detailed
Project Report on the basis of which the Project was
determined to be economically feasible. Even at the
originally projected cost of Rs. 2,300 crores, there were
serious doubts about economic feasibility of the Project. Now,
therefore, the Project has clearly become economically
unviable.
7
H. Because, at the very outset and without prejudice to all the
other submissions and grounds raised in this petition, it is
respectfully submitted that there has been a fundamental
change in circumstances which warrants a complete,
comprehensive and exhaustive multi-disciplinary
reevaluation of the SSCP project and its likely impact on the
lives of thousands of persons inhabiting the southern coast of
Kerala; the change in circumstance being the tsunami which
hit the Indian coast on of 26th December, 2004. It is
submitted that the entire EIA study was undertaken by the
NEERI in the pre-tsunami era; the final report having been
submitted in/around May, 2004, much before the 26th
December, 2004 Tsunami. Though the environmental
clearance was given on 31.03.2005, 3 months after the
tsunami, no efforts were made to undertake any fresh
exercise in view of the changes in the conditions brought
about by the tsunami.
I. Because, in addition, it is also relevant that the region is
known to be, essentially, a sedimentation sink; and there is
ample evidence pointing to the fact that the tsunami has
altered the bathymetry of the region. The sea bed has risen
in height in most places, on account of deposit of silt etc.
carried by the tsunami and deposited in these areas. None of
these factors have ever been taken into account by any of the
expert bodies/authorities.
J. Because the prospect and impact of a future tsunami have
also not been considered or dealt with before grant of
environmental clearance. The petitioners have learnt that in
March, 2005, the office of the Prime Minister of India had
8
raised concerns regarding the impact of a future tsunami on
the project, which ought to have been subjected to a multi-
disciplinary evaluation. However, even the concerns raised
by the office of the Prime Minister of India were given a go by,
and no review/re-examination of the project was ever
undertaken; on the other hand, environmental clearance was
accorded in a mechanical manner, as set out below.
K. Because, in addition to the above, the environmental
clearance dated 31.03.2005 is vitiated on account of
arbitrariness and non-application of mind, as is clear from
the following:
(i) One of the most important environmental aspects of the
project is the problem of disposal/dumping of the
dredged material. The study report highlights the fact
that dredging shall lead to increase in turbidity at, and
in the vicinity of, the site; thereby preventing
penetration of sunlight into the water body, which
would endanger the survival of marine flora and fauna
at and around the site. For these reasons, quick and
efficient removal of the dredged material is crucial.
Further, the disposal of the dredged material would
have to be done in a manner that minimizes the
likelihood of any adverse impact at the disposal site.
The study report analyses the two available options,
viz, disposal on land, and disposal in the sea. On
detailed examination and analyses, the study
recommends that disposal would have to take place
both on land, as well as at sea; the clay and silt to be
disposed off/dumped on land or to be used to help
9
reclaim land near Pumban island, and the sand to be
dumped at suitable sites in the sea, atleast 20-25
kilometres from the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere
Reserve. The following passages from the study report
are relevant:
“ Thus impact due to dredge disposal could
be minimized by selecting option of land
disposal for dredged spoil containing higher
percentage of clay and silt. Balance
dredged spoil containing sand could be
disposed in sea. As sand particles have
discrete setting, rise in turbidity of sea
water at disposal location is not envisaged
thereby minimizing impact on primary
production…”
“………… It is proposed that spoil containing
a mixture of clay and sand will be disposed
on degraded areas of Pamban island for
reclaiminf the land subject to approval of
Forest and Environment Department (TN) for
use of area falling under CRZ as dumping of
wastes in CRZ area is not permissible
activity. Balance 30 million cu. meters spoil
containing mainly sand ……………… will be
discharged in sea 25 Km away from the
dredging area keeping safe distance from
the medial line……………………………”
10
(ii) Even the Environment Management Plan envisages a
similar methodology for disposal of the dredged
material. The following extract from the ‘Executive
Summary’ of the study report, dealing with the
Environment Management Plan is relevant :
“Environmental Management Plan
Construction Phase
……………Dredged spoil comprising clay and
sand upto 2 m of dredging depth will be
used for reclaiming degraded land in
Pamban island subject to approval of FED
for CRZ. Balance dredged spoil will be
disposed in sea at a depth 30-40 m, 20-25
km away from islands in National Marine
Park in Gulf of Mannar. Dredged spoil
generated in Palk Strait / Palk Bay area will
be disposed in open sea in Bay of Bengal at
25-40 m depth, 30-60 km away from
dredging area.”
(iii) The study report also recommended that the project be
implemented in two phases; the first phase involving
dredging the channel upto 10m depth, and the depth
being increased to 12m in the second phase only after
observing and analyzing the environmental impact of
the first phase. The report itself adds a word of
11
caution, stating that “the route would become
environmentally viable only if the management plans
and recommended measures are strictly followed”.
(iv) This note of caution has been totally disregarded.
Firstly, the recommendation regarding the
implementation of the project in two phases has does
not appear to have been considered by the MOEF at all.
Further, the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MOEF), in its clearance dated 31.03.2005, while laying
down a specific condition that “the Environment
Management Plan recommended by NEERI should be
implemented” (Specific Condition ‘xix’), has, at the
same time, categorically prescribed that the “dredged
material will be disposed off in the identified sites in
the sea”, and that “no dredged material will be
disposed off on land” (specific condition ‘I’). This is in
clear conflict with the recommendations of NEERI, as
well as the Environment Management Plan prepared by
it. Clearly, despite the caution sounded by the NEERI
itself, this condition laid down in the environmental
clearance would itself render the project
environmentally non-viable. No reason, much less a
detailed/satisfactory one, has been given for this
departure from the NEERI’s recommendations; showing
the total non-application of mind by the MoEF.
H. Because, in addition to the above, non-application of mind in
grant of environmental clearance is also evident from the
fact that issues regarding introduction of alien species into
the Gulf of Mannar, as well as the Palk Bay, Indian Ocean
12
and Bay of Bengal, have been completely overlooked by the
MOEF. The ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’, 1992 (an
international convention adopted under the auspices of the
United Nations Environment Programme, to which India is a
signatory), casts the following obligation on all member
states:
“ Article 8
In-situ conservation
(a) – (g) ……………………………………………………
(h) Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate
those alien species which threaten ecosystems,
habitats or species;”
NEERI in its study report, while accepting the richness
in biodiversity of the Gulf of Mannar, has specifically
adverted to the risk of introduction of alien species into this
pristine and unique habitat, in the following words :
“ The Channel will facilitate the movement of fish
and other biota from the Bay of Bengal to the
Indian Ocean and vice versa. By this way, the
entry of oceanic and alien species into the Palk
Bay and the Gulf of Mannar, as also the dispersal
of endemic species outside the Palk Bay and the
Gulf of Mannar could occur.”
“Excavation of the channel in the Adams Bridge
sector would provide a deeper passage in the
sector, which is shallow at present, and serve only
as a barrier. Underwater currents play a
13
significant role, not only in the transportation of
large marine organisms, plankton biota, fish eggs
and larvae but also on shore dynamics, specially
of the islands, reef and paars. Strong current
would erode the banks of the canal and carry the
sediments from one sector to another, which
ultimately results in accretion of sand in one
sector and erosion in another sector. Once the
canal is deepened, the passage would greatly
increase the movement of fishes and other large
animals from Bay of Bengal to Indian Ocean and
vice versa. Hence, the entry of oceanic and alien
species into Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar and also
dispersal of endemic species outside Palk Bay and
Gulf of Mannar would be facilitated.”
This aspect has not been adverted to at all in the
environmental clearance. No steps have been prescribed to
cater to this inevitable eventuality and its impact on the
local marine population. The argument that some water
from the Bay of Bengal enters Palk Bay and has always flown
over the Ram Setu even before the Project is no answer
because the mid-ocean channel envisaged under the Project
would be 12 metres deep and 300 metres wide. Such a deep,
wide channel will permit a much greater range of sea-going
species to pass through into the Gulf of Mannar, which until
now has offered a relatively sheltered habitat for numerous
endangered species. Such uncontrolled migration will
certainly lead to the extinction of numerous species.
14
I. Because NEERI itself has predicated its EIA study on the
absence of cyclones and other severe weather conditions on
the Bay of Bengal. However, there have been numerous severe
cyclones in this region including one in 1964, which washed
away the Pamban Bridge. Therefore, NEERI’s study is itself
fundamentally flawed. No environmental clearance could
have been granted based on NEERI’s study if this was the
underlying assumption.
J. Because the environmental clearance also does not advert to
the possibility of blasting at all, and does not prescribe any
safeguards or conditions in this respect. This, despite the
fact that NEERI, in its EIA study report, has specifically
stated that “dredging may also require blasting if hard
strata are encountered”, and that “in the event of blasting,
adverse impact on sea bottom fauna is envisaged”. This
aspect, as stated above, finds no mention at all in the
environmental clearance dated 31.03.2005.
K. Because, in the respectful submission of the petitioners, a
reading of the environmental clearance shows that it does
not prescribe specific, concrete and tangible
measures/safeguards regarding environmental and ecological
protection, but merely pays lip service, as it were, by setting
out vague and generalized conditions, such as the following :
“xiv Strict monitoring should be undertaken at
four hourly interval round the clock to monitor
the movement of sediments of dredged material in
the dredging area and daily on the coast and
15
other sensitive areas of Gulf of Mannar
Biosphere/National Marine Park.
xvi Effective monitoring of aquatic ecosystem
may be done to ensure that no damage is done to
the turtles, dugongs, flora and other endangered
species.
Such vague and general conditions, which are basically
unenforceable, are not what is expected of a body such as the
Ministry of Environment and Forests which is charged with
protecting the environment under the Environment Protection
Act.
L. Because the EIA study conducted by the NEERI also does not
comply with the requirements of the EIA Manual, which
represents the policy of the Union Ministry of Environment
and Forests. The EIA study conducted by NEERI does not
conform to the requirements of the EIA Manual with regard,
inter alia, to the following respects:
• The option of how the environment would fare if there
were ‘no project’ was required to be considered under
the EIA Manual as a fundamental analytical tool for
determining whether the environmental clearance
should be granted to the Project.
• No assessment was made of the impact of the project on
significant historical, cultural and archeological
sites/places in the area, which is mandated under the
16
EIA manual. A reading of the EIA study report does not
disclose any study having been conducted by the NEERI
in this behalf, with the aid and assistance of experts in
the relevant fields. On the other hand, this aspect has
summarily been brushed aside, in the following words
found in the executive summary of the NEERI report:
“…… there are no archaeologically significant
structures along the proposed canal alignment.
However, there exists a probability of
cultural/archaeological artifacts being
encountered during the excavation of the canal…”
M. Because the environmental clearance granted under the
Environmental Protection Act by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests betrays complete non-
application of mind. The environmental clearance does
not take account of the fact stated by NEERI that
controlled blasting will be required if hard strata are
encountered during dredging. NEERI has admitted in
the EIA Report that dredging itself will destroy bottom
flora and fauna in a 6 sq. km area of the Palk
Straits/Gulf of Mannar region. It has admitted further
that an even greater effect on the surrounding region is
likely in the event that controlled blasting is done.
Nevertheless, the environmental clearance of March 31,
2005 does not take this into account or prescribe any
steps to resolve this issue.
N. Because NEERI, the agency selected to do the EIA
Report for the Project has had no experience of doing an
17
EIA for a large marine project of this nature. Moreover,
as stated by one of India’s most eminent coastal geo-
morphologists Prof. Victor Rajamanickam, the EIA
study by NEERI was defective because it did not involve
specialists from earth sciences such as geo-
morphologists, sedimentologists, mineralogists,
oceanographers, climatologists, etc., whose presence
was a vital pre-condition to doing a proper analysis.
O. Because the traditional mode of survival of the
fisherman and the tribals will be destroyed by the
destruction of coral reefs which are the breeding
grounds of the fishes. The Project does not make any
provision for alternative employment.
P. Because the Government of India has not made any
provision for compensation for the fisherman
community and other tribes in the islands of the Project
area. Along the coast in the Gulf of mannar and Palk
Bay, there are 138 villages and towns of 5 districts are
being adversely affected. The Socio–economic profile of
the fisherman in the villages is so low that more than
40% families are in debt. The result of the Project will
be to deprive these communities of fish and they will
starve.
Q. Because the implementation of SSCP is uprooting the
livelihood of 5 lakh fisherman and their families which
is the violation of the constitutional protection of the
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) and
Artice 14, 21 which guarantee the right to life and
18
livelihood and the freedom of the fishermen to carry on
the trade or business of their choice.
R. Because the implementation of SSCP will destroy the
Coral reef which is the breeding ground for the fishes
which will affect the business of the fishermen which is
the violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21.
S. Because no survey has been conducted for the tribal
inhabitants over the islands and their rehabilitation
has not been worked on before the project
implementation which is violation of the Constitutional
Protection under Article 244(1), Schedule V Constitution
of India ,and the other various Acts which bars
prohibit or restrict the transfer of the land of the
tribals.
T. Because implementation of SSCP constitutes a gross
violation of the constitutional duties of the State under:
1) Article 48A which casts the duty on the State to
protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
2) Article 46 which casts a duty to the State to
protect the economic interest of the tribes and
other weaker sections.
3) Article 49 casts a duty on the State to protect
monuments or place or objects of artistic or
historic interest from spoliation disfigurement
destruction, removal, disposal or export as the
case maybe.
19
U. Because the petitioners are discharging the
fundamental duties cast upon every citizen of India
under Article 51A .
1) Article 51A (f) to value and preserve the rich
heritage of our composite culture;
2) Article 51A (g) to protect and improve the national
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life and to have compassion towards living
creatures.
3) Article 51A (h) to develop scientific temper,
humanism and spirit of enquiry and reform 51A (i)
is to safeguard public property and to abjure
violence to protect by the fundamental duties
V. Because the implementation of SSCP has not taken into
consideration the various provisions of Wildlife
Protection Act, and Air Pollution Act, Forest
Conservation Act of 1980, Water Prevention and
Control of Pollution Act 1974, Water prevention and
Control of Pollution rules of 1975, Water prevention and
Control of Pollution Cess Act of 1977 and the Coastal
Regulation Zone Notification issued by Ministry of
Environment and Forests under the Environmental
Protection Act.
W. BECAUSE there is a gross violation of the International
Convention for Prevention of Pollution from ships of
1973 as modified by the protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73-
78) to which India is a signatory.
20
X. BECAUSE the implementation of the Project has not
taken into consideration that the Cultural and the
Customary Rites of the Hindus would be violated by the
Project as Ram Setu is claimed by hindus to be their
TEERTH. The destruction of Ram Setu by the Project
will cause irreparable damage to the religious
sentiments of Hindus as Ram Setu is considered as a
holy place for performing religious ceremonies and
oblations which is mentioned in various Puranas and
Valmiki Ramayana. Thus, the Project clearly violates
the constitutional guarantees of the right to practice
one’s religion under Article 25 and Article 26 of the
Constitution.
Y. BECAUSE the Coral reef system as also the ecosystem of
the tropical rain forest, are the most mature marine
ecosystems of our planet. Implementation of the project
will tend to destroy coral reefs which, in turn, would
tend to cause High sea tides and will increase the
destruction caused by storm surges, hurricanes,
cyclones etc.
Z. Because the result of the Project being undertaken near
the medial line between the “historic waters” of India
and Sri Lanka in Palk Bay and Palk Straits is that
these waters will be turned into international waters.
Countries such as the United States will be able to
claim a right of free passage (as opposed to merely of
innocent passage) without the consent of India.
21
AA. Because, far from improving national security, the
project will seriously jeopardize India’s national
security. The Government of India has not applied its
mind at all to this issue.
BB. Because, assuming without admitting that Ram Setu is
not man-made and is a natural phenomenon, it is still
worthy of being designated a world heritage site
because of its importance to Hindus and to Muslims,
who believe that the original Adam crossed this bridge
to Sri Lanka and stood still on one leg for 1,000 years
to repent his sins.
CC. Because even an inter-ministerial committee of the
Government of Sri Lanka has warned about serious
damage to the environment in Sri Lankan waters on
account of the Project. Petitioners crave leave of this
Hon’ble Court to produce relevant documents in Court if
and when they become available.
It is important to note that neither the EIA Report declared in May-
August, 2004 by NEERI nor the DPR by L&T Ramboll in February
2005 have taken into account the effect/ likelihood of a tsunami
such as the one on December 26, 2004. A copy of the DPR
submitted by L&T Ramboll is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE. A copy of the EIA Report submitted by NEERI is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE.
The Respondents have been moving at a very fast pace in
implementing the Project only to ensure that it is a fait accompli
22
before this Hon’ble Court is able to dispose of the pending cases.
Copies of the progress charts downloaded from the website of
Sethusamudram Corporation are briefed below:
http://sethusamudram.gov.in/Projectstatus.asp Project Status:
Work A and B: Adam’s Bridge (Progress 6.9% as of 31 May 2007)
Work C: Palk Bay II
Work D: Palk Bay I (Progress 98.24% as of 31 May 2007)
Rama Setu is a man-made structure and is of an enormous religious
significance and hence should be deemed a monument of national and
international significance. It is submitted that India which has a
peninsular coast of 3554 nautical miles is surrounded by two seas
i.e. the Bay of Bengal towards the east and the Indian Ocean and
the Arabian Sea towards the west. These two seas have different
currents and if commingled, may cause disastrous conditions. The
two are presently separated by the “Ram setu” the mention of
which is made in many spiritual Hindu holy works like, Valmiki
Ramayana, Skanda Purana, Kurma Purana, Bhagwat Purana,
Garuda Purana, Narada Purana, Vishnu Purana, Agni Purana,
Brahma Purana and Padma Purana. Mention of the existence of the
Ramsetu is referred to in the Gazetteer of India. Markings of the
Ramsetu are a part of the Survey Marine Maps of the years 1747,
1788 and 1804.
According to geological survey, it is apparent that Miocene Era
limestone beds are under the Adams Bridge which connects Jaffna
peninsula in Sri Lanka and Rameswaram in India. A Copy of
23
opinion of S. Badrinarayanan former Director, Geological Survey of
India and an advisor of National Institute of Ocean Technology is
given on Pages 22 to 24 of Rama Setu book annexed.
Certain fundamental duties have been cast upon the Petitioners as
Citizens of India and they are discharging their fundamental
duties under Article 51A of the Constitution, such as:
a) 51A (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our
composite culture;
b) 51A (g) to protect and improve the national environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have
compassion towards living creatures.
c) 51A (h) to develop scientific temper, humanism and spirit of enquiry and reform 51A (i) is to safeguard public property and to abjure violence to protect by the fundamental duties
Between 1860 and 1922 as many as nine proposals were
formulated to cut the channel across the narrow strip of land
mostly through the Rameshwaram Island to connect the Gulf of
Mannar with Palk Bay. After independence, four proposals were
mooted between 1956-1996 regarding the viability of the project.
None of the pre-independence proposals nor the first three post
independence proposals speak of cutting the Rama Setu. However,
the fourth committee not being a committee consisting of marine
experts has proposed to cut Rama Setu in order to implement the
Project.
There is considerable scientific evidence accumulated that
the Rama Setu is man-made. Moreover, NEERI which was
24
mandated to examine this issue under the citing
guidelines of the Ministry of Environment and Forests has
simply proceeded on the basis that the Rama Setu is not
man-made. Article 51A(f) of the Constitution enjoins
protection of the cultural heritage of India. Therefore, it
is respectfully submitted that the Archaeological Survey of
India is required to determine under the Ancient
Monuments Act, 1958 as to whether or not the Rama Setu
is man-made. If it is man-made, its origins certainly
stretch back into antiquity more than the 100 years
required under the said Act. If so, it would be fit and
proper for this Hon’ble Court to stop the project before it
destroys the Rama Setu and to direct the Archaeological
Survey of India to have the Rama Setu declared as an
ancient monument or an archeological survey as the case
may be and to ensure that it gets all the protection that
such a monument requires.
A report of the Department of Earth Sciences of Government of
India states as follows:
[quote]… During the glacial Maxima, the sea level was
about 130 m lower than what is today. This is
evidenced both on the east and west coast of India,
where submerged Corals occur around 1 to 2m water
depths and they are clear indicators of near coastal
zone… However, during the last ice age (18,000 year BP)
the entire area from India to Sri Lanka and further
south and southeast were contagious land due to the
highly lowered sea level. As and when there were major
melting of glaciers both from the mountains as well as
from the Antarctic area, the sea level was rising. These
25
features were well recorded and studied by several
submerged Coral formations all over the world. About
7,300 years BP the sea level in the southern part of
India was about 3.5 m above the present level. This has
been deciphered by Dr.P.K.Banerjee, who studied Corals
that found in the land part as of Pamban,
Rameswaram, and Tuticorin etc. Subsequently the sea
level went down and rose +2m above than what is today
between 5000 to 4000 years B.P. .. In almost of all the
boreholes between 4.5 and 7.5m the borehole
intersected hard formations, which have been found to
be calcareous sand stones and corals. It is to be pointed
out here that Corals are comparatively less dense,
compact and somewhat easy to carry. The Corals
normally grow atop compact to hard formations for the
purpose of stability, and as the sea level rises, the Coral
colony grows up vertically to maintain water depth of 1
to 2 m, which is essential for their survival. It is always
observed that these Corals have continuous vertical
growth like Lakshadweep, Andaman's, and Gulf Of
Mannar Natural Park. These have always been found to
grow on hard rock bottom. In the case of Adams bridge
area we observe that the Coral formations hardly occur
1 to 2.5m in length and resting on loose marine sands.
Most of these coral rock pieces are seem to be rounded
pebbles of corals. These things appear to point these
coral rock pieces and pebbles have been transported
and placed in these areas. Since the calcareous sand
stones and Corals are less dense than normal hard rock
and quite compact, probably these were used by the
ancients to form a connecting link to Sri Lanka, on the
26
higher elevations of the Adams bridge ridge and this is
analogous to modern day causeway. In support of these
observations there are many archaeological and
geoarchaeological evidences on the south east coast of
India around Rameswaram, Tuticorin and the western
coast of Sri Lanka. There are raised Teri formations
that supported a rich assemblage of mesolithic –
microlithic tools indicating the presence of strong
human habitation and activity in these areas as early
as 8000 to 9000 years B.P and as recent as 4000 years
B.P. On Sri Lanka side there are indications of human
habitation extending to late Pleistocene (about 13,000
B.P) based on bone and fossils of human and animal
form. All these point to a flourishing human activity on
both side of Adams Bridge and probably when the sea
levels were just right the link between India and Sri
Lanka could have been established. [unquote] Source:
Dept. of Earth Sciences, Govt. of India (March 2007)
L. As Ram Setu clearly was not built within the last 100 years,
to the extent that it is man-made, it is entitled to be
designated an “ancient monument” under Section 2(a) read
with Section 4 of the Ancient Monuments or an
“archaeological site” under Section 2(d) read with Section 4
of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains Act, 1958.
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The Respondents including the Ministry of Shipping and the
Ministry of Environment in the Union of India as well as the
Government of Tamilnadu are all controlled by the same political
27
party, which is rushing through with the Project without any
circumspection despite serious concerns about the dangers posed
by the Project to the lives of the people as well as to sensitive
biodiversity hotspots such as the region where the Project is being
implemented.
Although the Respondent Union of India may seek to defend the
Project on the ground that it is a policy decision of the Government
of India, it is well settled by the decisions of this Hon’ble Court
that a policy decision must be set aside if it violates binding
statutory provisions or the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. It is respectfully submitted that the Project and its
implementation are being pushed through in clear violation of the
provisions of various environmental statutes, the mandate of the
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,
1958 and the provisions of Articles 14, 19, 21, 25 and 26 of the
Constitution.
The Project runs through the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Straits
and Palk Bay in a region which was hit by the Tsunami of
December 26, 2004. However, the mid-ocean channel has been
conceptualized without having taken into account the warnings of
world-renowned Tsunami experts that it could funnel and amplify
the Tsunami waves in a manner that will result in lakhs of deaths
and destroy the coastline of Southern Kerala and Tamilnadu, thus
violating the fundamental rights of citizens of India under Article
21 of the Constitution. Further, the Project involves not only
dredging over many square kilometers of the ocean floor but also
controlled blasting in the Palk Straits and Gulf of Mannar, which
will endanger the flora and fauna of Gulf of Mannar Biosphere
Reserve declared by UNESCO to be one of the most important
28
biodiversity hotspots in Asia and declared as such by the
Government of India and the State of Tamilnadu. The Gulf of
Mannar is home to a number of endangered species such as the
dugong (sea cow), the sea horse, sea turtles, whales and dolphins
and to endangered habitats such as coral reefs, mangrove forests
and sea-grasses that support the species named above. Apart from
such serious violations of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the
environmental clearances for the Project under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, have been granted in complete violation of
statutory provisions and without taking into account the protective
actions recommended by the National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute, a Central Government Agency (“NEERI”), in the
environmental impact assessment report (the “EIA Report”).
It is vital to note that the Project also involves cutting through the
Ram Setu barrier in Palk Straits (situated south east of
Rameshwaram near Pamban and connects Talaimanar coast of Sri-
Lanka) which is believed to be man made according to highly
reputed marine archaeologists and geologists and whose origins
stretch back into antiquity. No investigation has been done of the
Rama Setu structure to determine if it is deserving of protection as
an ancient monument or an archaeological site under the Ancient
Monuments Act, 1958. The enormous religious sentiment of the
people of India with respect to Ram Setu which is regarded as a
creation of Lord Rama and his Vanara army led by Lord Hanuman
has also been intentionally disregarded by the Government of India
and the Shipping and Environment ministries of the Government of
India, which curiously enough belong to the same political party
that is also the ruling party in Tamilnadu. U.S. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration satellite pictures showing
29
Palk Straits, Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar and Ram Setu
bridge are marked and annexed.
Further, the Project involves not only dredging over many
square kilometers of the ocean floor but also controlled blasting in
the Palk Straits and Gulf of Mannar, which will endanger the flora
and fauna of Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve declared by
UNESCO to be one of the most important biodiversity hotspots in
Asia and declared as such by the Government of India and the
State of Tamilnadu. The Gulf of Mannar is home to a number of
endangered species such as the dugong (sea cow), the sea horse,
sea turtles, whales and dolphins and to endangered habitats such
as coral reefs, mangrove forests and sea-grasses that support the
species named above. Apart from such serious violations of the
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the environmental clearances for the
Project under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, have been
granted in complete violation of statutory provisions and without
taking into account the protective actions recommended by the
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, a Central
Government Agency (“NEERI”), in the environmental impact
assessment report (the “EIA Report”).
Despite wide ranging investigations by the Petitioners, they have
not been able to find any clearance having been granted by the
State of Tamil Nadu or the Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India for the destruction of the wildlife in Schedule
I. Assuming that any clearance has been granted, it is not known
on what basis the wildlife protection division of the Ministry of
Environment and Forests has estimated the numbers of endangered
wildlife in Schedule I which would be destroyed as a result of the
implementation of the Project.
30
It is vital to note that the Project also involves cutting
through the Ram Setu barrier in Palk Straits (situated south east
of Rameshwaram near Pamban and connects Talaimanar coast of
Sri- Lanka) which is believed to be man made according to highly
reputed marine archaeologists and geologists and whose origins
stretch back into antiquity. No investigation has been done of the
Rama Setu structure to determine if it is deserving of protection as
an ancient monument or an archaeological site under the Ancient
Monuments Act, 1958.
There is considerable scientific evidence accumulated that
the Rama Setu is man-made. Article 51A(f) of the Constitution
enjoins protection of the cultural heritage of India. Therefore, it is
respectfully submitted that the Archaeological Survey of India is
required to determine under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958 as
to whether or not the Rama Setu is man-made. If it is man-made,
its origins stretch back into antiquity, and certainly more than the
100 years required under the said Act. If so, it would be fit and
proper for this Hon’ble Court to stop the project before it destroys
the Rama Setu and to direct the Archaeological Survey of India to
have the Rama Setu declared as an ancient monument or an
archeological survey as the case may be and to ensure that it gets
all the protection that such a monument requires.
In addition, the environmental clearance dated 31.03.2005 is
vitiated on account of arbitrariness and non-application of mind.
One of the most important environmental aspects of the project is
the problem of disposal/dumping of the dredged material. The
study report highlights the fact that dredging will lead to increase
in turbidity (i.e., suspended matter in the ocean) at, and in the
31
vicinity of, the site; thereby preventing penetration of sunlight into
the water body, which would endanger the survival of marine flora
and fauna at and around the site. For these reasons, quick and
efficient removal of the dredged material is crucial. Further, the
disposal of the dredged material would have to be done in a
manner that minimizes the likelihood of any adverse impact at the
disposal site. On detailed examination and analyses, the EIA
study by NEERI recommends that disposal would have to take
place both on land, as well as at sea; the clay and silt to be
disposed off/dumped on land or to be used to help reclaim land
near Pumban island, and the sand to be dumped at suitable sites
in the sea, at least 20-25 kilometres from the Gulf of Mannar
Marine Biosphere Reserve.
Destruction of the Eco-Marine Biosphere and the Coral Reef.
1) The Gulf of Mannar reefs are developed around a chain of 21
islands that lie along the 140 km stretch between Tuticorin
and Rameswaram. These islands are located between
latitude 8°47’ N and 9°15’N and longitude 78°12’E and
79°14’ E. The islands lie at an average of about 8 km from
the main land. They are a part of the Mannar Barrier reef,
which is about 140 km long and 25 km wide between Pamban
and Tuticorin. Different types of reef forms such as shore,
platform, patch and fringing type are also observed in the
Gulf of Mannar. The islands have fringing coral reefs and
patch reefs around them. Narrow fringing reefs are located
mostly at a distance of 50 to 100 m from the islands. On the
other hand patch reefs rise from depths of 2 to 9 m and
extend to 1 to 2 km in length with width as much as 50
meters. Reef flat is extensive in almost all the reefs in the
32
Gulf of Mannar. Reef vegetation is richly distributed on these
reefs. The total area occupied by reef and its associated
features is 94.3 Sq. km. Reef flat and reef vegetation
including algae occupies 64.9 and 13.7 Sq. km, respectively.
Visibility is affected by monsoons, coral mining and high
sedimentation load. These reefs are more luxuriant and
richer than the reefs of Palk Bay.
2) There are about 96 species of corals belonging to 36 genera
in the Gulf of Mannar. The most commonly occurring genera
of corals are Acropora, Montipora and Porites. Coral
associates such as ornamental fishes belonging to the family
Chaetodontidae, (butterfly fish); Amphiprion spp (clown fish),
Holocentrus spp (squirrelfish), Scarus spp (parrotfish),
Lutjanus spp (snapper fish) and Abudefdul saxatilis (Sergeant
Major) are found. Extensive sea grass beds are present; green
turtles, olive ridley turtles and dugongs are dependent on the
sea grasses.
3) The Central Government’s Coastal Regulation Zone
Notification 1991 regulates onshore development activities,
which affect coastal environments, and strictly prohibits the
collection and trade of corals. The Wildlife Protection Act
1972 protects certain areas and certain marine species.
Efforts continue to bring corals under this act and to
encourage enforcement that is more stringent. Coral reef
conservation is also included in the Environmental Protection
Act, 1986, the National Conservation Strategy and Policy
Statement on Environmental Development (1992) and the
Action Plan of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The
conservation and management of coral reef resources is
33
within the mandate of the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, the focal point for the Indian Coral Reef Monitoring
Network and the National focal point of ICRI.
4) India has 6 marine protected areas; the largest is the Gulf of
Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GoMBR), which encompasses
10,500 sq km. The reefs there have been neglected and there
is no systematic monitoring of the status of the reefs except
for occasional EIA studies for development activities. There is
a great need for training of conservation officers to manage
the protected areas and funding for infrastructure
development.
Coral Reef Monitoring Action Plans (CRMAPs), prepared under
the first phase of the GCRMN, have been launched within the
framework of the ICRMN for all reef areas except the Gulf of Kutch.
Government support has been extended for the implementation of
the CRMAPs and to build capacity to monitor reefs through
training. However, activities are still at a beginning and overall the
capacity for monitoring and management is lacking. Other
significant international initiatives on the Indian coral reefs
underway and under development include UNDP/GEF DPF B Projects
on the Gulf of Mannar and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the
Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean project (CORDIO), an
Integrated Coastal Zone Management Training Project (ICZOMAT)
funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)
and an India-Australia Training and Capacity Building (IATCB)
programme. The above stated data is based on the article
downloaded from http://envfor.nic.in/icrmn/misc/ cres.html
5) Coral reef systems as also the ecosystem of the tropical rain
forests are the most matured marine ecosystems of our
34
planet. They play an important role in global biochemical
processes and in the reproduction of food resources in the
tropical regions. Coral reefs act as a barrier against wave
action along coastal areas thus preventing coastal erosion. In
addition, coral reefs protect mangroves and sea grass beds in
certain areas, which are the breeding and nursing grounds of
various economically important fauna. Coral reefs are also
important breeding, spawning, nesting, and feeding areas for
many economically important varieties of fishes and other
marine organisms. Coral reefs are a distinctive shoreline
habitat of stunning visual appeal found only between
latitudes 30°N and 30°S. They grow only where sea surface
temperatures are above 20°C, the seabed is kept silt-free by
prevailing currents and waves, and there is intense surface
sunlight. Most living coral communities do not grow at depths
of more than 50 m, although some grow at depths of 100 m.
The people living along the coast obtain a considerable
proportion of their food and earnings from the productivity of
coral reefs. Coral reef ecosystems are very sensitive to
external impacts both natural and manmade, which violate
their homeostasis.
Therefore, according to the above reports, the
implementation of the Project may destroy coral reefs which, in
turn, may tend to cause High sea tides, surges, hurricanes,
cyclones etc.
6) Evaluation of the environmental/ecological impact of a
maritime project is usually based on a detailed study of
geological, biological, physical and chemical
35
oceanographic parameters. These factors play an important
and collective role. If any one of these factors is stressed
beyond the manageable and threshold limit, the system gets
affected adversely beyond repair. Turbidity (suspension of
clay and mud in a column of water) is one such factor.
This could be fatal to an ecosystem. Unfortunately, according
to an estimate, the Project dredging may displace around 9.7
million m3 bulk of rock, shoal and sediments, making the
water column highly turbid till the project is completed. The
operation will displace/release a few hundred thousand tons
of clay-size particles. The stressed turbidity causes
imbalance in O2–CO2 ratio, imperative for life and health of
phytoplanktons, which are the lowest in the marine ‘food
chain’. Moreover, if this kind of turbidity continues for a long
duration (i.e., till completion of the project), penetration of
sunlight below 2–3 m depth will be blurred. This will check
the photo-inhibitation and lower the pH of water as CO2
supply will continue due to respiration of animals, while
release of O2 will diminish amidst the slow pace of
photosynthesis. This process will encourage abundant
growth of anaerobic organisms and may worsen the health of
other organisms. Coral reefs, the land-bridging platforms and
lungs of the shallow oceans, are at decline worldwide due to
anthropogenic impact/activity. Coral reefs are biotherms that
favour high biodiversity vis-à-vis supporting standing crop of
phytoplanktons. Like tropical rainforests, coral reefs have
evolved complex interdependent community
structures despite or more likely, because of paucity of
nutrient resources in their environments. The turbid
conditions that the Project is likely to cause will harm and
destroy corals within a short span of time.
36
Moreover, Vibro Core operations are carried out for assessing
the physical characteristics and determination of the geo-
technical properties of the softer sediments. Dr Seshagiri, Former
,Director of the Geological Survey India expresses his concern over
the amenability to conventional dredging of not only the rocky
strata but also of the softer sediments with high N-Value. Dr.
Seshagiri’s views were published on Sept. 9, 2005.
Further, the Project envisages dredging of the sea floor of
12.8 meters deep, 300 meters wide for permitting 2 way traffic of
ships. If there happens to be a sudden tilt in the sea bed while
dredging, it may cause numerous violent processes, such as a
major change in drift, possible change in gravitational pull etc.
These alarming concerns have been expressed by Prof.
Rajamanickam, one of India’s most eminent Coastal geo-
morphologists and mineralogists.
Geographically, past experiences have shown that ignoring these
environmental concerns could cause a lot of damage. For example,
when Panama canal was first designed, the problem of land slides
was ignored thus resulting in additional excavation, i.e., more
than double the original volume estimates resulting in cost and
time over runs.
NEERI EIA Report does not address all relevant issues.
7) The objectives for the EIA study are stated to be “assessment
of environmental impacts, its quantification and for
delineating environmental management plan for [the Project]
to enable the Ministry of Shipping to obtain environmental
clearances from concerned local, state and central
37
Government authorities”. The final report of the NEERI
states that a rapid environmental impact assessment study
report was first prepared, after which a comprehensive EIA
report was prepared. [Para 1.5.1 of the NEERI report]. The
final comprehensive report appears to have been prepared
in/around May/ August, 2004.
8) The study is stated to have included components pertaining
to the coastal water environment, marine environment, land
environment, biological environment, socio-economic and
health environment, ecological risks etc. An Environment
Management Plan was also drawn up as part of the study.
[Para 1.5.4]
9) Further, the EIA study itself states that permission/approval
form the following agencies/organizations would be required
for the project :
• Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board
• Tamil Nadu State Forest & Environment Department
• Tamil Nadu Maritime Board • State Wildlife Warden
• Chief Conservator of Forests • Ministry of Environment and Forests
• Ministry of Defence / Indian Navy
• Archeological Department • Ministry of External Affairs
• The Government of Sri Lanka [Para 1.7]
10) The Petitioners, despite their best efforts, have not been able
to locate material available in public domain which would
show that approvals/permission from each of the said
agencies were in fact obtained before commencement of work
on the Project. The record clearly shows that the
38
environmental clearance dated 31.03.2005 given by the
Ministry of Environment and Forests (the one clearance which
does appear to have been obtained) is vitiated by sheer non-
application of mind and arbitrariness. This would be clear
from the grounds raised by the petitioners in the present
petition.
11) In any event, it is relevant to point out that the entire EIA
study was undertaken by the NEERI in the pre-tsunami era;
the final report having been submitted in/around May, 2004,
much before the 26th December, 2004 Tsunami. The
occurrence of the tsunami has resulted in a fundamental
change in circumstances, warranting a thorough multi-
disciplinary re-examination and reevaluation of the
environmental and other aspects of the project. Though the
environmental clearance was given on 31.03.2005, 3 months
after the tsunami, no efforts were made to undertake any
fresh exercise in view of the changes in the conditions
brought about by the tsunami.
12) The Petitioners have also learnt that in March, 2005, the
office of the Prime Minister of India had raised concerns
regarding the impact of a future tsunami on the project,
which ought to have been subjected to a multi-disciplinary
evaluation. As stated above, the tsunami which hit the
Indian coast on 26.12.2004, and caused wide spread
devastation, should have warranted a review of the entire
project, and, at the very least, suitable changes should have
been made to account for the impact of the said tsunami, as
well to provide for the effects of any future tsunami. However,
even the concerns raised by the office of the Prime Minister of
39
India were given a go by, and no review/re-examination of the
project was ever undertaken; on the other hand,
environmental clearance was accorded in an arbitrary and
mechanical manner, as set out in detail in the grounds of the
present petition.
Other Issues
13) Moreover, the dangers posed by the Project violate the UN Law
of Sea Convention, 1982.
Part II Section2, Article 6 deals with Reefs, Article 9 tells
on Mouths of Rivers, Article 10 speaks about Bays.
Part V Article 61 - Conservation of the living resources,
Article 64 - Highly Migratory species.
Article - 65 and Part VII, Section 2, Article 120
also speaks on Marine Mammals.
Part VII Section 2, Article 116 speaks on fishing rights.
Part XI Section 2, Article 145 and Article 237
emphasizing that protection of Marine
Environment is obligatory. In the same part
Article 146 urges the need for protecting the
Human life, Article 149 and Part XVI, Article 303
both deals with Archaeological and historical
objects.
Part XIII Section 3, Article 254 dealt with Rights of
neighboring land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged States.
40
14) In an article entitled “Will ship use canal at such costs?” by
K.S. Ramakrishnan, Former Deputy Chairman, Madras Port
Trust while expressing his views suggest that the
comparative cost that a ship has to pay while passing
through the canal, the Levy will be Rs. 60 Lakhs while the
same ship has to spend only 1/8 of the Project’s likely levy
i.e., just Rs. 7 Lakhs for the ship to Sail round Shri Lanka to
reach Chennai Port. A copy of the Article of K.S.
Ramakrishnan is at Page 51 of Rama Setu book annexed.
Former CM of Tamilnadu Ku. J. Jayalalitha stated that “Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, should have waited for the NOC (No-objection Certificate) from the State of Tamilnadu which is mandatory under the regulations framed by the Ministry itself”.
The Petitioners understand that till now the Indian Government
has not officially notified Sri Lanka of the Project proposal.
Moreover, it is also the Petitioners understanding that an NOC has
not been obtained from the Government of Sri-Lanka or Maldives
which is mandatory.
It is vital to note that the Jaffna Peninsula in Sri Lanka and
Rameswaram in India are linked via Miocene era lime stone reefs.
And if, for the purpose of the Project, these reefs are dredged, there
is a fear that half of Jaffna peninsula & nearly 85 islands on the
western and north western coast of Sri Lanka and half of
Rameswaram in India will go under water. There is also a fear
that a sizable section of the fishermen in North and North western
part of Sri Lanka will also be adversely affected as well as the
fishermen of the Republic of Maldives. In fact, a Memorandum on
the likely destruction due to the proposed Project was submitted to
the Indian High Commissioner H.E Smt Nirupama Rao, by National
41
Movement against Setusamudram, an organistation consisting of
123 members.
The Petitioners are also alarmed by the news items which
show that religious hindu sentiments have been affected by the
project and that it has led to a nation-wide agitation which in turn
can lead to violence.
NEERI’s note of caution has been totally disregarded. Firstly,
the recommendation regarding the implementation of the project in
two phases has does not appear to have been considered by the
MOEF at all. Further, the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MOEF), in its clearance dated 31.03.2005, while laying down a
specific condition that “the Environment Management Plan
recommended by NEERI should be implemented” (Specific Condition
‘xix’), has, at the same time, categorically prescribed that the
“dredged material will be disposed off in the identified sites in the
sea”, and that “no dredged material will be disposed off on land”
(specific condition ‘I’). This is in clear conflict with the
recommendations of NEERI, as well as the Environment
Management Plan prepared by it. Clearly, despite the caution
sounded by the NEERI itself, this condition laid down in the
environmental clearance would itself render the project
environmentally non-viable. No reason, much less a
detailed/satisfactory one, has been given for this departure from
the NEERI’s recommendations; showing the total non-application of
mind by the MoEF.The enormous religious sentiment of the people
of India with respect to Ram Setu which is regarded as a creation
of Lord Rama and his Vanara army led by Lord Hanuman has also
been intentionally disregarded by the Government of India and the
Shipping and Environment ministries of the Government of India,
42
which curiously enough belong to the same political party that is
also the ruling party in Tamilnadu. This clearly raises issues
under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court should intervene in the matter to ensure that mandatory statutory provisions in environmental statutes are not violated and that the fundamental rights of the citizens of India, particularly of Kerala and Tamilnadu are protected.
This counter filed by the Government confirms the importance of undertaking a
conclusive study with full resources and participation of the Archaeological Survey of
India, which is charged with the protection of ancient monuments and archaeological
sites/ remains.
The respondents are carrying on with the project, reporting about 7% progress in
the Adam’s Bridge segment of dredging (as reported in their website
http://sethusamudram.gov.in) , in violation of mandatory, statutory obligations in
the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and that
they have proceeded without any conclusive material despite the religious and
archaeological significance of Rama Setu.
It is noted that paragraph 23, repeatedly uses the verb "might be", which means the
deponent himself is admitting that he is not sure.
Paragraph 26, admits that the result of the investigation by GSI was only a
"preliminary conclusion" again, there is a doubt. Moreover, paragraphs 24 and 25 no
where state explicitly that the boreholes drilled were on Adam's Bridge. The
paragraph 27 in turn is based on the views of a team of geologists invited by
respondent SCL, which has an extremely strong self interest in denying the historical
significance of Rama Setu.
As against this a reputed Government body such as the NIOT, has undertaken
studies that strongly suggest, if not confirm, that Adam's Bridge is man made.
With respect to paragraph 28, it is refreshing candour that the Government
authorities themselves admit and rely upon records that Rama's Bridge did exist
once upon a time. A bridge should have existed for it to be claimed to have been
destroyed by Rama. The very same document from which the selective quote has
been cited also repeatedly refers to the fact that what was later called Adam’s Bridge
was indeed Rama’s Bridge (Ramar Paalam) or Nala Setu or Setu bandha, names
used in cartographic maps and epigraphs and also in the logo of the Survey of India,
established in 1767 which refers to Bharatam boundaries as aasetu himachalam
(From Setu to the Himalayas).
It may be noted that in Paragraph 17 (i), the respondents state: “The creation of the
channel will also afford an opportunity to the pilgrims to visit Adam’s Bridge, not
possible today, and offer obeisance as the SCL is contemplating provision of a
Viewing Gallery along the channel alignment.” This is clear admission by the
43
respondents that this Ramar Paalam (Rama Setu also called Adam’s Bridge) is a
pilgrimage place and it is refreshing candour on the part of the respondents to
concede that pilgrims do “offer obeisance.” We submit that this statement of the
respondent confirms the petitioner’s claim that this should be deemed to be an
ancient monument, a sacred pilgrimage tirthasthaanam.
In fact, this statement in Paragraph 17 (i) runs counter to the statement in
Paragraph 13 (i) of the respondents’ counter: “It is further denied that the said
bridge is a cultural heritage or ancient monument or archaeological site and
remains.” We submit overwhelming epigraphical, numismatic, cartographic, textual
and scientific evidence to counter this statement and false claim by the respondents.
It is clear from the respondents’ statements that no investigation has been
done of the Rama Setu structure to determine if it is deserving of protection as an
ancient monument or an archaeological site under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958.
There is considerable scientific evidence accumulated that the Rama Setu is
man-made. Article 51A(f) of the Constitution enjoins protection of the cultural
heritage of India. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Archaeological
Survey of India is required to determine under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958 as
to whether or not the Rama Setu is man-made. If it is man-made, its origins stretch
back into antiquity, and certainly more than the 100 years required under the said
Act. If so, it would be fit and proper for this Hon’ble Court to stop the project before
it destroys the Rama Setu and to direct the Archaeological Survey of India to have
the Rama Setu declared as an ancient monument or an archeological survey as the
case may be and to ensure that it gets all the protection that such a monument
requires.
The Gulf of Mannar falls in the Indo-Pacific region, considered to
be one of world's richest marine biological resources. The Gulf has
been chosen as a biosphere reserve primarily because of its
biological and ecological uniqueness. The region has a distinctive
socio-economic and cultural profile shaped by its geography. It has
an ancient maritime history and was famous for the production of
pearls. Pearls were an important item of our trade with the Roman
Empire as early as the first century A.D., while Rameswaram, with
its links in legend to the Ramayana, has been an important
pilgrim centre. The region has been and continues to be famous for
44
its production of chank (Indian conch) although irrational chank
fishing has severely depleted stocks.
The Gulf of Mannar has 3,600 species of plants and animals that
makes it India's biologically richest coastal region. It is, of course,
specially known for its corals, of which there are 117 species
belonging to 37 genera. It is an inlet of the Indian Ocean, between
South Eastern India and Western Sri Lanka. The Gulf of Mannar is
130 km to 275 km wide and 160 km long. During high tide, the
seawater would raise to more than 1.2 meters above the sea level.
Full of beach ridges, the Gulf of Mannar can be grouped into: (I)
Beach ridges south of Vaigai River; (II) Beach ridges between
Kotangudi River and Palar River; (III) Beach ridges between Palar
River and Gundar River system; (IV) Beach ridges between Gundar
River and Vaippar River; and (v) Beach ridges south of Vaippar
River. In addition, the biosphere reserve in the area has 17
different mangrove species. The total water logged land has been
calculated to be 5.96 sq. km. Eight series of Strand Lines can also
be observed, apart from the Sea Cliff and Caves. The Palk Strait is
an inlet of Bay of Bengal which is 64 kms to 137 kms wide and
137 kms long. Several Indian rivers including Vaigai flows into the
Palk Strait and it also contains many islands which belong to Sri
Lanka.
Threat of Tsunami if the project is implemented.
15) As stated above, if the Project is implemented and a channel
with a depth of 12m is created, then it will act as another
route for a Tsunami wave to travel and will be directed
towards Southern Kerala. It is important to note that neither
the EIA Report declared in May-August, 2004 by NEERI nor
the DPR by L&T Ramboll in February 2005 have taken into
45
account the effect/ likelihood of a Tsunami such as the one
on December 26, 2004.
16) Various world-renowned Tsunami experts have warned that
the project could have dangerous consequences if it is
implemented. Prof Tad. S. Murthy, an advisor to the
Government of Canada on Tsunamis, in an interview has
stated as follows:
“……I feel that the Bay of Bengal entrance of the
present orientation of the channel will undoubtedly
funnel tsunami energy into the channel and this will
meet the tsunami traveling from south of Sri Lanka at
the southern part of Kerala and through constructive
interference will augment the tsunami wave
amplitudes. The southern part of Kerala was not much
impacted by the 26th December 2004 tsunami mainly
because the tsunami that arrived from the Indian Ocean
has to diffract around Sri Lanka, which necessarily has
to take a very wide turn (because tsunamis are long
gravity waves and cannot bend as easily as short
waves, just like a big car versus a mini. A mini cut
corners, but a big car has to take very wide turns.) and
missed south Kerala……”
“…It is very easy to show that the SSCP channel with a
depth of 12m will indeed provide another route for the
tsunami and the energy will be directed towards south
Kerala.”
A copy of the interview given by Prof. Tad S. Murthy is provided in
Pages 216 to 220 of Rama Setu book annexed herewith.
46
Another expert, C. P. Rajendran from Centre for Earth Science
Studies, Akkulam, Thiruvananthapuram has written an article in
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, No. 2, 25 JULY 2005 in which he has
stated as follows:
“The question of cyclonic disturbances in changing the
sedimentary budget of the region has not been
properly addressed by the EIA studies, and
consequently skews the predicted estimates of the
sedimentation pattern and its rate. This means
that total amount of material to be dredged could be
much more than what had been predicted. Another
question is how would the cyclones rework the dredged
material to be dumped at various sites,
although fortified with embankments (e.g.
Dhanushkodi).
A copy of C.P. Rajendran’s article is annexed herewith.
(Annex 12)
Annex 1: NASA’s considered views and ISRO Resource Satetllite information
Annex 2: Copper plate inscription of Parantaka Chola refers to ‘Setu’
Annex 3: Evidence of Ramayyan Ammanai an ancient manuscript printed
under Madras Oriental Series, references to Rama’s Bridge, Setu
Annex 4. Cartographic evidence for Nalan, Ramarcoil
Annex 5. Numismatic evidence for Setu: Pre-modern coinage of Srilanka
(Ceylon)
Annex 6: Evidence for concerns expressed during the British Rule for the
archaeological importance of Rama Setu and recommending archaeological
investigations
Annex 7: Textual evidences for Rama’s bridge or Setubandha
Annex 8: Evidence for objections raised against the Project alignment as
early as September 2005
47
Annex 9: Possibility of restoring the land-link between Bharatam and
Srilanka restoring the Rama’s Bridge or Rama Setu
Annex 10: Setu Channel passage: 34 Lankan experts call it eco disaster
Annex 11: Historic Waters Agreement between India and Sri Lanka
Annex 12: Sethusamudram shipping canal project and the eternal silence of
the Indian earth scientists (CP Rajendran)
Annex 13: Reports on the Press meet held by Min. of Science and
Technology on June 2, 2007 in New Delhi offering samples for testing