VHP leader Pravin Togadia on Tuesday said the outfit’s controversial yatra would continue as planned through its decided route.
“The 84 kosi parikrama yatra would continue as per its schedule from its decided route and there would be no change in it,” Mr. Togadia, who was released from temporary jail, told reporters here.
Claiming that the yatra has started on August 25 following puja at the Saryu ghat, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader appealed that it should be allowed to continue in a peaceful, non-violent and democratic manner.
Mr. Togadia said MPs of all the political parties have been urged to frame a law for the construction of Ram temple and also include it in their respective manifestos.
He accused the administration of not making arrangements for food and medicine during his “illegal detention”, and claimed that despite the high court order yesterday, he was released only this morning at 8 am.
“I was kept in detention illegally and not even doctor was provided when I fell ill,” he said, adding that he would approach the high court in this matter.
Mr. Togadia alleged he was not allowed to talk to media after his release which was an infringement of his right.
The VHP leader said Uttar Pradesh government “is being run not by Akhilesh Yadav but Azam Khan” and alleged that the yatra was banned because of Mr. Khan.
“If Azam Khan is dreaming of turning Uttar Pradesh into Mughalistan, we would not allow its and give a befitting reply to it democratically,” Mr. Togadia said.
VHP leaders Ashok Singhal and Pravin Togadia were on Monday released along with 957 fellow cadres, a day after nearly 2,500 activists were arrested in a massive crackdown by Uttar Pradesh authorities to foil its yatra which also led to protests by its workers.
The release of the VHP leaders came shortly after the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court directed the state government to release them in case they have been detained in violation of section 151 (2) of the CrPC.
Under this section, a person cannot be detained beyond 24 hours in case of apprehension of breach of peace unless he is not required in some other offence.