Responding to writ petitions which sought assurances that there would be no destruction of the Adam’s Bridge/Ram Setu during the Sethusamudram project works, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in a common counter-affidavit on behalf of the Government, said that “the Adam’s Bridge formation can be classified as a series of shoals or a series of barrier islands, both of which are naturally occurring formations caused by tidal action and sedimentation.”

The ASI said that the Adam’s Bridge is “merely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance.”

Reminding the court that it had, in a separate case, defined archaeology as “a study of human history and prehistory through excavation of sites and analysis of physical remains”, the ASI said the “Adam’s Bridge site cannot, therefore, be said to be of any archaeological interest”.

“Unless these ingredients are satisfied, the question of construing Adam’s Bridge as an ancient monument and declaring it as a protected monument does not arise”.

Referring to NASA images of the Adam’s Bridge area being relied upon by the petitioners, the ASI said that the petitioners have “misinterpreted” these images to argue that these formations are “ man-made, and more specifically, constructed by Lord Ram... NASA has publicly clarified that although these images were taken by NASA spacecraft, NASA is not responsible for any interpretations.”

“The issue cannot be viewed solely relying upon the contents of mythological texts, the accuracy of which is largely unascertainable,” the ASI’s affidavit stated.