New Delhi, Jan. 28: The Supreme Court today asked why the Ram setu, which “cannot be seen”, should be declared a national monument.

“Any structure that cannot be seen… can it be declared a national monument? It is very surprising,” a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by ADMK chief Jayalalithaa “on behalf of the people of Tamil Nadu” seeking to have the setu declared a “national monument”.

The setu, a chain of islets 10km off the Rameshwaram coast, is visible in patches but submerged for the most part. It is revered as the bridge that Ram and his army of monkeys built on their way to Lanka.

The petitioners fear the Sethu Samudram project — a deep-sea canal that will reduce the sailing time from the east to the west coast of the country — will damage the islets.

Unable to come up with an answer to Balakrishnan’s poser, Jayalalithaa’s lawyer K.K. Venugopal said the ADMK leader would not insist on the national monument tag if the court ensured the structure was not damaged during the ship canal project.

The Chief Justice then asked if Jayalalithaa had ever petitioned the authorities seeking such a status. Venugopal said she had opposed the project and was waiting for the Centre to finalise its stand. “But the Union (the Centre) is dilly-dallying on filing its affidavit,” he said.

Balakrishnan asked why Jayalalithaa had filed the petition three years after the project was approved. “The project was cleared in 2005… a public figure is filing a petition after three years,” he said.

Balakrishnan clubbed the plea, one of the several filed on the Sethu Samudram plan, for adjudication. The petitions, including one filed by Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, have challenged the legality of the project on religious and environmental grounds.

Jayalalithaa has argued in her petition that the destruction of the setu, because of the dredging for the ship canal, is fraught with serious “ecological, environmental, climatic and security concerns”. “The actions of the respondents (Union, Sethu Samudram Corporation) in proceeding with the project notwithstanding its calamitous effects and the destruction/damage of the subject of immeasurable heritage value are wholly unjustified and contrary to the constitutional duty cast upon the state on which public trust is reposed.”