Ayodhya verdict deferred, centre made party

KT NEWS SERVICE NEW DELHI, Sep 23: In a significant decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday deferred by one week the much-awaited Allahabad High Court verdict due on Friday on the 60-year old Ayodhya land title ownership dispute that can pave way for reconstruction of the demolished Babri Mosque or construction of the Ram Mandir on the site.

The Centre was not a party in the dispute arising from five suits in the High Court, but the Supreme Court decided to make it a party to try for out-of-court settlement even while issuing notices to all concerned and fixing Tuesday for hearing the urgent special leave petition (SLP) filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi to defer the judgement for giving time for conciliation.

The Attorney General was asked to assist the court in the next hearing.

If the Apex Court's interim stay goes beyond September 30, the High Court will not only be unable to deliver the verdict but a new Bench will have to be constituted to hear the case de novo as Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, who is part of the present 3-judge Bench, is retiring that day.

The Supreme Court took this into account while fixing the hearing on Tuesday, September 28.

Sharma has already created a controversy by issuing a dissent order on Monday, deferring with the majority judgement of Justice SU Khan and Justice Sudhir Agrawal who rejected the petition for deferring the verdict.

He wanted more time given to the parties to amicably settle the title dispute and as such speculation is already rife that he can even resort to resignation to put spoke in the verdict that was slated for Friday as it would result in constitution of a new Bench to hear the case afresh.

Even the 2-judge Supreme Court Bench was divided on deferring the verdict that will handle one of India's most divisive and sensitive issues -- what came first, the Babri Masjid or the Ram Temple -- as Justice H L Gokhale said if there is even one per cent possibility of conciliation, the chance be given as the High Court verdict will have consequences on the common man for which the people will otherwise blame the Supreme Court.

His brother judge, Justice R V Raveendran heading the Bench, disagreed on putting on hold the upcoming verdict, but the convention prevailed that notice has to be issued if one of the two judges decides to hear the case.

Justice Raveendran accordingly pronounced the order, deferring the High Court verdict and fixing the next hearing on September 28.

Congress spokesman Janardan Dwivedi said whatever the Supreme Court decides is welcomed and respected by his party as its stand has always been that any problem should be solved through dialogue and mutual understanding and if not possible, it should be decided by the Court whose verdict should be accepted by everybody.

BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad, who is himself a senior advocate, said so many conciliation efforts over the years did not solve the Ayodhya dispute as the Apex Court is trying through deferment of the verdict, but he would only say that the petitioner is "lucky" to get Thursday's order.

Petitioner Tripathi, whose petition for deferment of the verdict was summarily rejected by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, has pleaded before the Supreme Court that the verdict may lead to communal violence and hence better put off the verdict to allow mediation to find a solution.

His case is that the massive security deployment for the Commonwealth Games disables the Uttar Pradesh Government getting enough central forces to maintain law and order after the verdict.

Even while pronouncing the order, Justice Raveendran said he was going by the convention to issue notice even though another member of the Bench (himself) wanted to dismiss the SLP as one member (Justice Gokhale) is of the view that notice be issued and order be stayed.

The interim stay is for a week, he ruled.

Appearing for petitioner Tripathi, senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi said country was already heaped with a lot of problems including floods, Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio and the coming Commonwealth Games (CWG) and as such there was hardly a scope to add another problem of law and order to it that is bound to happen once the verdict is out.

He asserted that the title verdict would not be between two parties over a private property despite individuals locked in the dispute as it actually involves sentiments of the people on both sides, one for the Ram Janmabhoomi temple and another for Babri Masjid.

Even while saying that this could not be the ground to stop pronouncement of the verdict by the High Court, the Supreme Court agreed to defer it to hear all parties and specially wanted the Attorney General to appear in the next hearing on Tuesday to explain if the Government of India has any solution to the dispute.

On Wednesday, another Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and A.K.

Patnaik had declined to hear the petition as not permitted in their roster and asked the counsel to approach the appropriate list.