Subramanian Swamy moves SC, seeks direction to Centre to decide representation on 'Ram Setu'
Subramanian Swamy has approached the Supreme Court. He wants the Centre to decide quickly on his request. He wants 'Ram Setu' to be declared a national monument. The court had previously asked the Centre to consider the matter. Swamy says no decision has been communicated yet. He argues 'Ram Setu' needs protection.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Centre to "expeditiously" decide his representation to declare ' Ram Setu ' as a national monument . 'Ram Setu', also known as Adam's bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, and Mannar Island, off the north-western coast of Sri Lanka.In his plea drawn by advocates Satya Sabharwal and Palak Bishnoi, Swamy has referred to the January 19, 2023 order passed by the apex court in the matter.On January 19, 2023, the Centre had told the top court that it was looking into the issue pertaining to declaring 'Ram Setu' as a national heritage monument The top court was then hearing Swamy's plea on the issue."The solicitor general states that the process is currently underway in the Ministry of Culture , but if the petitioner would so desire, he may also submit any additional material or communication as he may wish within a period of two weeks," the apex court had noted in its January 2023 order.The court had asked the Centre to take a decision on the issue and granted Swamy the liberty to move before it again if he was dissatisfied and disposed of his interim application on the issue.The fresh plea filed by Swamy said no response or decision taken was conveyed either to him or to the apex court till date.It said the Centre is duty-bound to protect 'Ram Setu' from any form of misuse, pollution or desecration."It is also important to note that this archeological site is a matter of faith and 'shradha' of people treating Ram Setu as a pilgrimage and all these archaeological studies and scientific findings are foundational evidence supplementing the existence of the man-made monument as a pilgrimage for worshippers," the plea said.It said after the January 19, 2023 order, Swamy had made a representation to the government on January 27, 2023 with all the accompanying documents.The plea said the petitioner had again written a fresh representation to the government on May 13, 2025.It has sought a direction to the Ministry of Culture "to decide the representation of the petitioner in an expeditious manner/time-bound manner in compliance of order of this court dated January 19, 2023".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
37 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Smog, Yamuna pollution biggest environment issues in Delhi: SC judge
Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Karol on Thursday said smog and Yamuna River pollution were the biggest environmental issues in the national capital. The judge was speaking at the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 when he emphasised on environmental protection. Each citizen, he said, was responsible to protect the environment and the onus wasn't just on the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. "We have to make sure that the environment, be it in any form, has to be protected. I would also say this, that over the years we have developed certain principles, and the public trust doctrine is one such doctrine which we must always keep in mind," Justice Karol said. He continued, "But I would say this, if you were to see our report card in the last 75 years, or since the 1980s, what have we done? Have we done enough to protect the environment? My view is that a lot needs to be done, at all levels. And I would borrow an expression, that the solution to the problem now is grassroots solutions to an international problem. The way forward, according to me, is that we as individuals have to take up the causes pertaining to the environment." Environmental issues could not be left to the courts for passing of verdicts, the legislature for making relevant laws or the executive for implementing them, he added. "Each one of us, as responsible citizens, has to understand, become aware of, and ensure that we protect the environment for posterity." He highlighted the two major issues -- air pollution and a polluted Yamuna -- Delhi has been grappling with required attention. "I don't know how many of you have travelled in the metro, or how many of you have gone beyond the Lutyens. But if you go to Noida or Trans-Yamuna, you would see what Yamuna really is. These are the two biggest challenges," Justice Karol said. He outlined judiciary's "zealous" role in protecting the environment. "The reason is very clear. And it is that Mother Earth is not ours. We are there for her and we are there not only for her but also for posterity, for future generations, not only in India, but the world over," the judge said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Trump's travel ban on a dozen countries set to take effect on Monday
President Donald Trump is resurrecting the travel ban policy from his first term, signing a proclamation Wednesday night preventing people from a dozen countries from entering the United States. The countries include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. In addition to the ban, which takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Monday, there will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people, Trump said in his proclamation. The list results from a January 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on hostile attitudes toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the Muslim ban or the travel ban, was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Madras High Court says same-sex couples can form family without marriage
The Madras High Court held that same-sex couples can indeed form a family, even though same-sex marriages are yet to be legally recognised in court made this observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the release of her 25-year-old partner, who had been forcibly detained by her birth family.A division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan ruled in favour of the couple, asserting that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family.'advertisement 'To a specific question from us, the detenue replied that she is a lesbian and in a relationship with the writ petitioner,' the court noted. The woman stated she had been beaten and subjected to rituals aimed at making her 'normal.' She expressed fear for her life and told the court she wished to be with the the petitioner had described herself merely as a 'close friend' in her police complaint, the court said it understood the hesitation, acknowledging that same-sex relationships still face societal bench cited the Supreme Court's rulings in NALSA and Navtej Johar, affirming that sexual orientation is a matter of personal autonomy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also referenced a previous ruling by Justice Anand Venkatesh in Prasanna J vs. S Sushma, where a 'Deed of Familial Association' between LGBTQIA+ partners was approved, recognising civil concept of a 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence,' the bench observed. 'The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.'The court ordered the immediate release of the woman, restrained her birth family from interfering in her personal liberty, and directed the police to provide protection to both women as and when required.
