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.