Twenty-four hours before the Chief Justice of India?s Bench takes up a plea to defer the Ayodhya verdict, parties on both sides of the 60-year-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid fence urged the Supreme Court not to create ?a feeling of failure of Rule of Law? and pave the way for pronouncement of the verdict by the Allahabad High Court.
The time of five days given for reconciliation by a divided Bench led by Justice RV Raveendran cannot alter what 60 years of legal dispute could not change, Swami Chakrapani of All India Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs clarified to the Supreme Court in separate affidavits today.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia and Justices Aftab Alam and KS Radhakrishnan will hear the deferment petition at 10.30 am on Tuesday.
On September 23, a divided Supreme Court Bench had stayed the verdict, scheduled to be pronounced the next day by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, to work out the hope of a ?one per cent chance? of reconciliation. The stay was triggered by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi?s plea to give him a chance to initiate settlement talks among the 28 disputing parties.
The affidavits filed on Monday show that Mahasabha members, who fight for the ?deity?s property which even the king cannot take?, and the Board, which wants ?public declaration of the Babri Masjid?, are still steadfast about their decades-old contentions in the high court. But, both seemed to have joined force against Tripathi in the apex court.
The Board describes Tripathi?s efforts as a ?last-minute attempt to put the clock back and frustrate efforts of the parties and court to decide the dispute once and for all?. The Sabha says his petition intends to create an ?imaginary fear psychosis?.
Both parties say they ?repose faith in the judicial pronouncement? and want it before Justice DV Sharma, one of the judges in the Lucknow Bench, retires on October 1.
?It is denied that there is any likelihood of resolving the dispute by mediation. All the efforts at the top level have failed. The Supreme Court may kindly be pleased to ensure that judgement is pronounced by the high court before October 1, 2010, that is, before the retirement of Justice DV Sharma so that the longstanding dispute may be adjudicated at least after 60 years,? the Board said.
Both sides agree separately that Tripathi has not been appearing in court since July 1989. His evidence was closed finally on May 20, 2005 after he could not produce any witness.
?Such a person cannot be expected to undertake the exercise of mutual settlement out of court in such an important and sensitive matter which could not be resolved by negotiations in spite of several efforts made at least by three prime ministers,? Mohammed Hashim, another litigant in the title suits, told the SC.