Countertocounter2

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