The Centre on Tuesday referred to the controversial affidavit — that raised doubts about the existence of Lord Rama and mythological characters as depicted in the Ramayana — for the first time after it was withdrawn in 2007, saying all the petitioners’ objections and court’s queries about the Sethusamudaram project were adequately handled in it.Referring to the affidavit filed in September 2007, senior counsel Fali S Nariman appearing as a special counsel for the Union Government said, “It is wrong to say the Madras High Court order dated June 19, 2007, has not been complied with. Substance of the High Court’s order has been complied with. There is no attempt to hoodwink the court.”He read out to the Bench, headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, several pages of the withdrawn affidavit which contained replies to questions like whether any study by the ASI has been conducted so far to ascertain if Ram Sethu could be declared as a historic monument and whether Adam’s bridge could be regarded as a national monument. However, Dr Subramanium Swamy, the petitioner, objected, “Sorry to say, but if an affidavit has been withdrawn, how can a part of it be relied on?”Agreeing to it, Justice R V Raveendran, also part of the three-member Bench, said: “You could have simply said paragraph 20 was objectionable, withdrawn that bit and filed the revised affidavit.”Nariman admitted, “Something should have been done but was not done. We express regret. We could have withdrawn that paragraph but withdrew the entire affidavit.” He then read out from the modified affidavit filed by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping.Arguing that a court direction could not be issued to declare a particular structure as a national monument “since the decision rests entirely with the Centre”, Nariman justified his previous submission that Lord Rama himself broke the bridge, citing scriptures and ancient literature.He took a dig at the people objecting to the project, including Dr Swamy and AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa — both have filed petitions in the SC. “When 850 people came for public hearings in 2004, these people never said it was a matter of faith,” he added.However, referring to Jayalalithaa’s remarks that it is a matter of sentiment, Nariman said, “Yes, we are sorry if we hurt your sentiments and will try not to hurt these again.”
