The Supreme Court today dashed the hopes of activists like Shyam Benegal and Teesta Setalvad to intervene in the sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case, making it clear that only the parties to the original lawsuits would be allowed to put forth their arguments.
The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer was hearing the pleas challenging Allahabad High Court's verdict of February 8.
"The fundamental right to worship Lord Rama at his birthplace was superior to the property rights being adjudicated in the Ayodhya land dispute case", Swamy said in the court.
The Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh told the Supreme Court in August that it is amenable to building a mosque in a Muslim-dominated area, at a reasonable distance from the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.
The apex court also rejected the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking to intervene in the ongoing matter. The top court directed the Registry not to entertain any more interim pleas filed by third parties in the matter. "Let the matter be listed on March 23", the bench said. "How can we do this in a case like this", the court said.More news: U.S. to impose duty on Canadian paper
This was after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who appears for Mohammed Siddiqui, one of the main petitioners referred to a five-judge bench decision by a five-judge bench of the court in a 1994 Ayodhya land acquisition case that mosques are not an integral part of Islam.
Swamy's intervention application on right to worship has now been converted to a writ petition and will be heard by an appropriate bench, Bar and Bench reported. The court is hearing 13 appeals against a 2010 judgement by Allahabad High Court on four civil suits filed over the title of the land that is known to Hindus as the "Ram Janmabhoomi", or the land where Hindu God Lord Ram was born.
On 6 December 1992, thousands of karsevaks who gathered in Ayodhya from across the country, demolished the Babri Masjid at the presence of security forces.
The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court had ruled in favour of partitioning the land equally among three parties-the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and "Ram Lalla" (infant Lord Ram), represented by the Hindu Mahasabha.