tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post591821004015414870..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Sethusamudram & M.F.Husain cases: A study in contrastAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-66672350500101829772008-05-12T23:09:00.000+05:302008-05-12T23:09:00.000+05:30The Delhi High Court judgment, at least from the e...The Delhi High Court judgment, at least from the excerpts in the Indian Express, looks fantastic. A bold unequivocal judgment upholding the right to offend in a democracy!Tarunabh Khaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234574402062317396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-85392592763911248532008-05-11T12:59:00.000+05:302008-05-11T12:59:00.000+05:30For Dilip, These are relevant paragraphs from my a...For Dilip, <BR/>These are relevant paragraphs from my article in Frontline: The link:<BR/>http://www.frontline.in/fl2419/stories/20071005501101600.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/>In his petition, Swamy contended that the Union of India’s inaction in not taking steps to investigate the history and origin of Adam’s Bridge was clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 49 and the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Swamy had earlier written to the government urging that Adam’s Bridge be declared an ancient monument of national importance under Section 4 of the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The government did not respond to the request. <BR/><BR/>Article 49 of the Constitution says it shall be the obligation of the state to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historical interest declared by or under legislation made by Parliament to be of national importance from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be. <BR/><BR/>The petitioners, including Swamy, referred to the “ancient history of India”, and the “epic, Ramayana” in support of their demand that Adam’s Bridge be considered an ancient monument. Therefore, it was important for the government to explain why it could not, on the face of it, accept the claims of the petitioners in this regard. <BR/><BR/>The government found that there was no concrete evidence for the claims of the petitioners and that they just wanted a “fishing enquiry” into the history of Adam’s Bridge to determine their claims that it was historic and ancient. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, the ASI analysed the ingredients of the definition of “ancient monument” under Section 2(a) of the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Under this law, to qualify as an ancient monument, the “monument” must be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest. In paragraph 32 of the affidavit, the ASI concluded: “In the light of the scientific study conducted, the said formation cannot, therefore, be said to be a man-made structure. The same is merely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance.” <BR/><BR/>The ASI was categorical that its obligation under Article 49 of the Constitution must be fulfilled on the basis of scientific study and analysis with total objectivity. Excavations of sites and analysis of physical remains form an essential part of this scientific inquiry, and the ASI has so far not found any evidence to suggest that Adam’s Bridge is a man-made bridge. It concluded that there was no merit whatsoever in the claim to warrant any action on its part under the Act. <BR/><BR/>For Ravi:<BR/><BR/>The counsel for UOI was indeed present, but I guess he was helpless, as the Bench had made up its mind, without hearing him. If the UOI complies with this interim direction/suggestion of the Bench, then the matter may become infructuous, when the hearing resumes on July 22. <BR/>It is not exactly a place of worship, but a place of belief structure. No prayers on a daily basis are held there. <BR/>The prospect of Sri Lanka taking it at the ICJ level was raised by Dr.Swamy during his submission, as an additional factor which ought to dissuade the UOI from going ahead with the project. But Dr.Swamy said he was objecting only to the possible damage to Ramar Setu, he was not against the project itself and if the UOI comes up with an alternative alignment, not touching Ramar Setu, he would withdraw his petition. But much of his attack was on the project as a whole. The possible dispute with Sri Lanka is an instance of this.V.Venkatesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08138846925562952785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-51693921695894442492008-05-11T11:13:00.000+05:302008-05-11T11:13:00.000+05:30"If there has to be a choice between respect for p..."If there has to be a choice between respect for people's so-called beliefs and development compulsions, choose the former. "<BR/><BR/>This is not so simple because irrespective of Ramar Sethu serious<BR/>doubts have been raised on the<BR/>ecological impact and economic<BR/>viability of the project.<BR/>There is no so called belief<BR/>there, it is a belief. How to deal<BR/>with that is a different issue.<BR/>In cases like this the belief<BR/>cannot be dismissed just like<BR/>that.I think we should try to<BR/>look at the larger questions,<BR/>than the specificities of Ramar<BR/>Sethu.Tomorrow a similar case on<BR/>the belief of some other community<BR/>might arise.How does a secular<BR/>polity deal with these issues.<BR/>Should it stick to the stand that<BR/>beleif and faith have no place when<BR/>it comes to development projectsரவி ஸ்ரீநிவாஸ்https://www.blogger.com/profile/10176389904737294055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-2974853378791738092008-05-11T11:05:00.000+05:302008-05-11T11:05:00.000+05:30"The Supreme Court must have heard the UOI to know..."The Supreme Court must have heard the UOI to know whether it considered alternative alignments, before choosing the one touching the Ramar setu, and whether it also considered the demand seeking the status of national monument for Ramar Setu. "<BR/><BR/>Well, was not the UOI expected to address these in the affidavits<BR/>filed before the SC. Is the<BR/>affidavit(s) silent on these?.<BR/>My understanding is UOI concluded<BR/>that no other alignment was possible and the envisaged one<BR/>was the only option.ரவி ஸ்ரீநிவாஸ்https://www.blogger.com/profile/10176389904737294055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-17316737946212781702008-05-11T10:16:00.000+05:302008-05-11T10:16:00.000+05:30Will the Act that was passed afterBabri Masjid dem...Will the Act that was passed after<BR/>Babri Masjid demolition to maintain<BR/>status quo in places of worship as<BR/>on 15th August 47 be applicable here.<BR/>Was the consel of UOI present when the Court made the observations and<BR/>what was his intervention. I could not find anything on this in the media. Meanwhile Organizer has some<BR/>news on SriLanka watching this case and whether this can become<BR/>a dispute for ICJ.ரவி ஸ்ரீநிவாஸ்https://www.blogger.com/profile/10176389904737294055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-17477357455769330892008-05-11T00:12:00.000+05:302008-05-11T00:12:00.000+05:30Any idea what criteria need to be fulfilled for a ...Any idea what criteria need to be fulfilled for a structure to be classified as a national monument?Dilip Raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294894305584371011noreply@blogger.com