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.”

... contd.