BJP MP Subramanian Swamy’s intervention plea in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute was opposed in the Supreme Court by several parties on the ground that he had no locus standi (right or capacity to appear) in the title suit.
While the matter was being heard by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, the counsel opposing the proponents of a Ram temple, said that his plea to argue as an intervenor had not yet been accepted
During the deliberations lasting over one-and-half hours, Swamy tried to impress upon the bench, also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, about his stand saying that he was raising the issue of Hindu fundamental right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
His intervention plea was opposed by parties including the All India Sunni Waqf Board, which was one of the main contestants in the matters.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was opposing the counsel for Lord Ram Lalla (diety) and the Uttar Pradesh government, said that only the main parties should be allowed to argue in the matter and “kurta-pyjama stuff should not be permitted”.
His statement was strongly opposed by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as Dhavan’s remark was apparently targeted at Swamy, who was clad in the traditional Indian attire and a waist jacket.
“He (Dhavan) should not be permitted to make such statements. I strongly object to such comments,” the ASG, who was appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said.
Dhavan quickly defused the situation stating that his statement was for others “except Swamy”. Mehta supported the intervention plea of Swamy and said, “He can be heard.” “I would like make out a case based on the Constitution that fundamental right gets precedent over property right,” Swamy said.
Another key party in the suit was the Nirmohi Akhara.