It must be recalled that the Babri case is being represented by both the Sunni and Shia Waqf Boards from the Muslim side.
In February 2017, the Supreme Court had also allowed Swamy to intervene in the pending matters relating to the Ayodhya title dispute with his plea seeking construction of Ram temple at the site of demolished disputed structure.
The affidavit also states that proximity of place of worships should be avoided as it may result in conflicts and acrimony.
Chairman of the Shia Waqf Board, Wasim Rizvi, claimed that Mir Baki Mosque was a property of Shia Waqf Board, which he said was the rightful owner.More news: Greg Schiano believes Ohio State's D-Line is best he's ever had
This is just an appeal, this affidavit has no value in law, Zafaryab Jilani, the counsel for Babri Masjid Action Committee said on Shia Waqf Board's move on the issue. The panel should include members appointed by the Prime Minister and the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, it said.
Shia Waqf Board told the apex court that Babri Masjid was their property and only they were entitled to negotiate an amicable settlement of the dispute. On September 2010, a three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that Hindus have the right to the makeshift temple under the central dome of the Babri Masjid.
BJP has openly batted for Shia Waqf Board to be included in the case as one of the parties.
"Going by this fact it was always a Shia mosque.only the Imam and Muezzins of the mosque were Sunnis who were paid their due by the Shia Mutawwali".
In November 2016, Subramanian Swamy had appealed in the Supreme Court for the day-to-day hearing in the case. Against the High Court's decision, all the parties have filed appeals in the Supreme Court which are pending for the last six years.