<p>A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan allowed the application filed by Swamy to be impleaded as a party in the matter. The court posted the case after six weeks asking the parties to file their affidavits.<br /><br />During the brief hearing, Swamy submitted that irrespective of the final outcome relating to the title deed dispute pending in the Allahabad High Court, the authorities should ensure adequate arrangement for devotees to have a 'darshan' of the idols. Denial of the same was violative of their fundamental rights, he said. <br /><br />Swamy contended that the regulations imposed on the puja practice by the Uttar Pradesh Government in consultation with the Statutory Receiver, the Commissioner, Faizabad District, were unreasonable and unnecessarily harsh.<br /><br />"According to this petitioner (Swamy), these(regulations) are highly derogatory, humiliating and unreasonable and particularly harsh on aged, infirm or even female devotees," the affidavit placed by him in support of his application before the bench said.<br /><br />During the brief hearing the Janata Party chief said the matter has to be heard urgently as the question of public health and morality arises in it and he was "seeking relief on behalf on the devotees". "The archanas and prayers should be allowed to be performed in a dignified manner", Swamy submitted.<br /><br />He sought that the "overzealous oppressive restrictions" be relaxed within the main framework of the ingredients of the status quo ordered in Section 7(2) of the Acquisition of Certain Areas Ayodhya Act.<br /><br />He submitted that the earlier order of the apex court on May 10, 1996 directing to maintain status quo had stayed all "the humane directions passed by the Allahabad High Court to facilitate and ameliorate conditions for Hindu pilgrims visiting the shrine." Swamy further submitted that the status quo order passed by the apex court in the SLP pending before it was acting as a hindrance and sought the implementation of the directions passed by the High Court.</p>
<p>A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan allowed the application filed by Swamy to be impleaded as a party in the matter. The court posted the case after six weeks asking the parties to file their affidavits.<br /><br />During the brief hearing, Swamy submitted that irrespective of the final outcome relating to the title deed dispute pending in the Allahabad High Court, the authorities should ensure adequate arrangement for devotees to have a 'darshan' of the idols. Denial of the same was violative of their fundamental rights, he said. <br /><br />Swamy contended that the regulations imposed on the puja practice by the Uttar Pradesh Government in consultation with the Statutory Receiver, the Commissioner, Faizabad District, were unreasonable and unnecessarily harsh.<br /><br />"According to this petitioner (Swamy), these(regulations) are highly derogatory, humiliating and unreasonable and particularly harsh on aged, infirm or even female devotees," the affidavit placed by him in support of his application before the bench said.<br /><br />During the brief hearing the Janata Party chief said the matter has to be heard urgently as the question of public health and morality arises in it and he was "seeking relief on behalf on the devotees". "The archanas and prayers should be allowed to be performed in a dignified manner", Swamy submitted.<br /><br />He sought that the "overzealous oppressive restrictions" be relaxed within the main framework of the ingredients of the status quo ordered in Section 7(2) of the Acquisition of Certain Areas Ayodhya Act.<br /><br />He submitted that the earlier order of the apex court on May 10, 1996 directing to maintain status quo had stayed all "the humane directions passed by the Allahabad High Court to facilitate and ameliorate conditions for Hindu pilgrims visiting the shrine." Swamy further submitted that the status quo order passed by the apex court in the SLP pending before it was acting as a hindrance and sought the implementation of the directions passed by the High Court.</p>