Headlines
Subramanian Swamy seeks better amenities for Ayodhya pilgrims
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to
direct that pilgrims going to Ayodhya be extended all civic amenities,
including free movement and fewer check-points.
Swamy urged the
bench headed by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu to direct the relaxation of
"over-zealous oppressive restrictions" that the pilgrims have to face
during their visit to Ayodhya to have 'darshan' of Lord Ram's idol at
the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.
As Swamy sought an early hearing, the court asked him to check if the pleadings were complete.
"Check if the pleadings are complete in this matter. We will give a date thereafter," the court told Swamy.
Swamy
sought enforcement of "each and every" direction of the Feb 23, 1996
order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which includes
arrangements for proper parking of vehicles and free movement of
pilgrims till they reach the pathway leading directly to the improvised
platform where the Lord Ram idol is installed.
The apex court had May 10, 1996 ordered status quo following the Lucknow bench order.
The
high court bench had said the authorities must provide free of cost
cloakroom facilities for pilgrims to keep their belongings for the
duration they spend in darshan of Lord Ram's idol.
The bench said
the cloakrooms should be so located that pilgrims are not made to
travel a long distance to collect their belongings on their return
journey.
Directing the authorities to make available civic
amenities to pilgrims in sufficient number, the high court bench had
directed separate facilities for men and women.
The high court
had said the entire pathway traversed by pilgrims for the darshan was
450 yards and fenced on both sides by high poles and barbed wire, and
thus the chances of infiltration were quite remote.
The court had said that instead of subjecting pilgrims to checks every 50 yards, they should be checked at two points only.
Swamy
told the apex court that directions passed by the high court bench were
"unimpeachable" but "unfortunately because of the May 10, 1996 status
quo order" passed by the apex court, none of these directions have been
implemented.
"It is just and proper that the same (directions) be implemented without any further delay," Swamy urged the court.












