The BJP reacted angrily, threatening an agitation and accusing the Government of “paying for the support it got from the DMK during the trust vote”. The Government’s submission in court, the party said, was “another ploy to play around with Hindu sentiments”.

Arguing on behalf of the Union Government before the bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal — the court is hearing a clutch of petitions against the project — senior advocate Fali S Nariman said: “For centuries, nobody has worshipped it and even demanded it (be declared a protected monument).”

Referring to a section from the Padma Purana, Nariman said it is clearly mentioned that Lord Ram broke the bridge himself in three yojans (one yojan is five miles). He said even the Kamba Ramayanam has a reference to this act.

Pushing for completion of the Sethusamudram project at the earliest, Nariman indicated that the possibility of any study on this by the Archaeological Survey of India looked unlikely. “It will take several years together to complete,” he contended, highlighting that in the last 150 years, nobody had said anything about it being religious or that it involved faith or that it was not man-made.

He drew the attention of the bench to the Rameshwaram temple where people had been worshipping for centuries but had not asked for its declaration as a protected monument.

“The idea of this court is not to act as a supervising or approving authority. It cannot act like an approver to a project of such national significance... Declaring a national/ protected monument is not the court’s business. It is a legislative act. How can it be a matter of mandamus?” Nariman said.

In its modified affidavit filed early this year, the Government had taken the same line that the court should “refrain from interdicting” and that opposition to this project on lines of faith was “misconceived and unsubstantiated”.

But the court, on its part, indicated that a balance could be drawn between the issue of faith and development. “If you accommodate little faith, it is possible. When alternatives are available, there should be little accommodation of both. You can sort it out,” said CJI Balakrishnan after Nariman pointed out how other alignments were rejected due to one factor or another.

Justice Raveendran remarked that “if the Government finds a scientific, technical and politically feasible alternative, then all other issues will be sorted out.”

Contending that the present alignment (No. 6) was chosen as it was considered best, Nariman said that even the Government was concerned not to cause any damage to the environment or the bridge. “No environmental clearances were given in haste,” he said. “We are not destroying any bridge. Everything on the project is being done with great circumspection.”

“If we have gone wrong, we will correct it. The idea is to go ahead with the project. We have to see there is no violation of law,” Nariman said.

Reacting to the Centre’s submission in court, the BJP alleged the UPA was “paying a price” for the support it received from the DMK during the trust vote.

“The UPA is paying for the support it got from the DMK during the trust vote. This is another blow on the sentiments of millions of Hindus in the country,” said BJP leader V K Malhotra. The party, he said, would launch a countrywide agitation on the issue.

BJP leader Yashwant Sinha said the UPA government was “playing with fire” and “interfering with people’s faith”.

Party spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad, too, said it was a ploy “to play around with Hindu sentiments”. “They are now saying Lord Ram destroyed the Sethu when earlier they had said that Lord Ram did not even exist,” he said.