NEW DELHI, APRIL 15: In remarks suggesting it was not convinced by the claim of the Ram Sethu (Adam’s Bridge) being a structure of religious importance, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed “nobody goes there to worship it”.

The Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Raveendran was going through submissions by Subramanian Swamy, one of the petitioners against the Sethusamudram shipping canal project who wants the court to direct the Centre not to damage the Ram Sethu since it is of “religious importance”. The Bench said: “Nobody goes there to worship it... who has gone there to worship?”

The matter will be taken up for final hearing on April 29.

To Swamy’s submission that people from Rameshwaram to the other end worship the Ram Sethu, the Bench observed “it is a matter of personal faith”.

Swamy called for criminal prosecution under IPC Section 295 (injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class) against anybody proceeding against the Sethu.

“Any dredging activity in the Adam’s Bridge area, the damage to the Ram Sethu would be irreversible and the injury to devotees and worshippers would be unrectifiable and the consequences to the public order, profound,” Swamy submitted in his reply to the court. “The damage to the Ram Sethu will not only be irreversible but it will also be an offence under law,” he maintained.

Aggrieved that the Union Government had filed only one affidavit after the controversial affidavits were withdrawn last year, Swamy pointed out that to date the Ministry of Culture had failed to file its response.

“The plea for archaeological investigation whether the structure could be declared a monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 is not conducted so far,” he said, asking the Bench not to give permission for vacation of the stay as was being sought by the Government.

Senior advocate F S Nariman, appearing for the Government, maintained that only one reply would be filed and the court should adjourn the matter for a final hearing.

The Centre had earlier withdrawn two of its affidavits, including one by the ASI where it had claimed that there was no historical or scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram and Ram Sethu as a man-made bridge.