The Supreme Court on Wednesday 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.
A special Bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, also said it would first decide whether the land dispute appeals be sent to a five-judge Constitution Bench as was sought by lead petitioner M. Siddiq (since deceased), who is represented by legal heirs in the case.
“Counsel for appellants as well as the respondents in all the appeals have raised objections for such intervention/ impleadment/ filing additional documents/seeking permission to render assistance. We are of considered opinion that these interlocutory applications do not merit any consideration and they are accordingly rejected,” the Bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer, said.
Additional papers
The Bench went a step further and directed its Registry “not to entertain any interlocutory applications for intervention or impleadment.” It, however, said the parties could file additional papers.
It accepted the vehement contention of both the parties, Hindu and Muslim organisations and individuals, that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to argue.
Besides Mr. Benegal and Ms. Setalvad, eminent persons like Aparna Sen and Anil Dharker wanted to intervene for using the disputed 2.77 acre disputed land for some ‘secular’ purposes.
The intervention plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, at whose instance the cases were fast-tracked by the apex court, was also rejected.
Swamy’s plea
The Bench, however, considered Dr. Swamy’s submission that he had not sought to intervene in the matter but filed a separate writ petition seeking enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at the birth place of Lord Ram in Ayodhya.
“I had filed a writ petition saying that I have a fundamental right to worship and this is a superior right than property right,” Dr. Swamy said.
“As we are not inclined to permit the intervention application, the writ petition filed by the applicant [Dr. Swamy] shall stand revived and it shall be dealt with by the appropriate Bench in accordance with law,” the Bench said.
