New Delhi, Apr 15: A minor tiff took place on Tuesday between Supreme Court judges on one hand and on the other a petitioner opposed to the Sethusamudram project.

The tiff took place as the Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Raveendran questioned the petitioner and former minister Subramanian Swamy's argument that "millions of Hindus worship Ram Sethu".

Swamy made the statement while arguing that the apex court must not suspend its order which had banned last year the dredging of the Adam Bridge or the Ram Sethu to build a sea route between India and Sri Lanka.

"It is an admitted fact that millions of Hindus worship Ram Sethu," Swamy said.

This led Justice Raveendran to ask: "Who has gone there to worship?"

And Chief Justice Balakrishnan added: "You cannot say that the people go there to worship as this is under the sea."

These remarks by the Bench appeared to upset Swamy and counsel for various other petitioners, who raised their voice and said: "It's an admitted fact that Ram Sethu is regarded as a religious place and millions of Hindus go to Rameshwaram to worship it".

"It's the belief of the people of the country and the court cannot say that it's not a place of worship," Swamy said.

The Chief Justice replied: "We do not say that it's not a sacred place. It's one's perception."

But Swamy said: "It's not a perception. It's an admitted fact that Hindus regard it as a place of worship."

Later, the Supreme Court posted for April 29 the hearing on the Centre's plea to go ahead with the Sethusamudram project.

The Centre had on February 29 filed a fresh affidavit in the apex court seeking clearance to go ahead with the Sethusamudram project on the same alignment saying issues of faith cannot be resolved through scientific evidence.

The 60-page affidavit cleared by the Cabinet Committee of Political Affairs (CCPA), which was chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, had said that the opposition to the project which started two years back was "misconceived" and "unsubstantiated" and the court should "refrain from interdicting".

The Centre had said that a committee of eminent persons appointed on October 5, 2007 re-examined the entire project, including the six possible alignments to conclude that the alignment No-6 ('Rama Sethu') was the "best alternative" and to alter channel alignment at this stage would be "infeasible" as it would lead to huge loses to the public exchequer.

"The alignment No-6 ('Rama Sethu') is backed by sound environmental, navigational, engineering and trans-boundary considerations.

"Therefore, the assertion that the alignment has been arbitrarily resorted to and other viable alternatives have been deliberately left out for malafide reasons is wrong and baseless," the affidavit said seeking vacation of apex court's interim orders directing not to damage the 'Rama Sethu'.

The Ministry of Culture had triggered a controversy last September by questioning the existence of Lord Rama and a man-made 'Rama Sethu' in an affidavit which was later withdrawn after a huge public outcry.