The Supreme Court questioned his locus standi in the matter when BJP leader Subramanian Swamy pleaded that the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir dispute case be heard urgently. The Court observed that he was in no way an aggrieved party in the case, and the contention that his “right to pray” was being affected was baseless. Swamy wanted speedy disposal of the case through court intervention.

While referring to his intervening application submitted in the court, Swamy pleaded that he was not fighting for any property and it was his constitutional right to demand a Ram Temple at the disputed site. The court, however, refused to hear the matter at an early date.

The court also made it clear that no further intervention from an outsider will be entertained in the case, while admitting that it had made earlier observations not knowing that Swamy was not a party. It lambasted Swamy: “You didn’t tell us you were not a party to the case.”

Other petitioners also alleged in court that Swamy had unilaterally brought up the issue earlier without consulting them.

The apex court on March 21 had suggested that the issue be solved amicably by all parties through an out-of-court settlement. It had then asked Swamy to get back on March 31 after discussing the matter with the concerned parties.

—By India Legal Bureau