The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits on a petition to defer the judgement after a 40-minute hearing saw the two judges on the apex court Bench come up with split opinions.
While Justice RV Raveendran, the lead judge, favoured the pronouncement of the judgement at 3.30 pm on September 24 by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, observing that ?people of the country are not so immature as to not accept a judgement?, his colleague Justice HL Gokhale went on to differ with him.
Justice Gokhale reasoned that any ?consequences? from the judgement on Friday may see ?ordinary people? suffer. He pressed for another attempt at conciliation between the disputing parties even if there is a ?one per cent chance?. He said the Supreme Court would be the first to be blamed if ?passions rise? after the judgement on Friday.
Making it clear in his order that he was simply bowing to the ?tradition in court? to honour his fellow judge?s opinion, Justice Raveendran ordered an interim stay on the judgement in the 50-year-old title suits. Justice Raveendran, however, made it clear that he would ?want the petition dismissed and the judgement reserved be pronounced on Friday?.
?One of the members of this Bench is of the opinion that the petition should be dismissed and the judgement reserved be pronounced on Friday. The other member of this Bench is of the opinion that judgement be stayed and notice issued. When one of the members want the notice to be issued as against the other who does not want notice to be issued, the tradition in court is that notice be issued and interim stay be granted,? Justice Raveendran wrote in the order.
The court scheduled the case for hearing on September 28. During the interim, Tripathi?s lawyer Mukul Rohtagi assured the court that he would take the initiative for settlement talks, though the other litigants present in court said there is ?zero per cent chance? for reconciliation.
As the hearing concluded, senior advocate Ravi Shanker Prasad, appearing for one of the title contenders, Dharam Dass, asked the Bench about the road ahead if the two judges continue to differ on September 28. To Prasad?s query if the court would then constitute a larger Bench, Justice Raveendran dismissed it with a non-committal ?we?ll see on that day?. The court asked the attorney general to be present on the next date to assist the court.
Thursday?s hearing was based on the petition filed by Ramachandra Tripathi, also a litigant in the high court, seeking to defer the September 24 judgement. Another Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Altamas Kabir had on Wednesday excused itself from hearing the case.
Sunni Central Wakf Board, one of the four main challengers to the title on the disputed land, alleged Tripathi was a ?non-serious player who never appeared or argued the case?.
Senior advocate Anoop George Chaudhary, appearing for the Board, alleged that Tripathi wanted the judgment to be put in ?cold storage? as Justice DV Sharma, one of the three judges on the Lucknow Special Bench, is scheduled to retire on October 1. This may lead to the entire case being re-argued before a new Bench.
Here, Justice Gokhale remarked that ?the government could take care of that (Justice Sharma?s retirement)?. He agreed with Rohtagi that the case had never come up before the Supreme Court, and the apex court could not let go of the dispute without ever having advised for a reconciliation.