BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking construction of Lord Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
Mentioning his petition before a bench headed by Chief Justice T. S. Thakur, Swamy said that under the practices prevalent in Islamic countries, a mosque could be shifted to any other place for public purposes like constructing road etc, whereas a temple once constructed could not be touched.
He said that the disputed mosque in Ayodhya could be shifted to some place across river Saryu and the Ram temple be constructed at the disputed site. He said that the report of the Archaeological Survey of India says that originally there was Lord Rama's temple at the disputed site.
The court said that the matter would be listed before the bench already hearing other matters relating to Ram temple - Babri Masjid dispute.
Seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights and that of other people belonging to Hindu religion under the constitution's article 26, Swamy has sought "the rebuilding and maintenance of the Lord Rama temple at the Ramjanambhoomi site at Ayodhya".
Besides this, Swamy has sought direction for the expeditious hearing of the appeals pending before the apex court challenging the Allahabad High Court order. He said that the status quo order passed on May 9, 2011 was coming in the way of the enforcement of his fundamental right to have Lord Rama's Atemple at Ayodhya.
Swamy has also sought direction for "free and unrestricted accessa to Lord Rama's makeshift temple at Ayodhya saying that "the right to life includes the right, freedom and liberty of the Petitioner and other devout Hindus to have free and unrestricted access to place of their worship".
Describing the judgment by the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court as "strange and surprising", the apex court had on May 9, 2011, stayed its verdict by which it had directed that the Babri Masjid - Ramjanmbhoomi disputed site be divided in three parts between the three contending parties.
Assailing the judgment, the apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R. M. Lodha (since both retired) had said that by directing the partition of the disputed site, the high court has given an entirely new dimension to the case.