Noting that the call for reconciliation has come 50 years too late, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea to defer the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits and cleared the way for the Allahabad High Court to pronounce its judgement. This means the Lucknow Bench of the high court is now free to deliver the verdict any time, ideally before or on October 1, 2010, when Justice DV Sharma, one of the three judges on the Bench which heard the case, is to retire.
Just 24 hours before the HC was to pronounce the judgement at 3.30 pm on September 24, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, a retired public official, got a divided SC Bench to stay the verdict to initiate last-minute settlement talks. He cited apprehensions of communal tensions in the aftermath of the judgement.
It was at this juncture that CJI SH Kapadia finally decided to hear Tripathi?s petition as the head of a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and KS Radhakrishnan. At 2pm, after a half-day-long hearing, the Bench simply dismissed Tripathi?s petition without offering any reasons. ?Having considered detailed arguments, we are of the view that the special leave petition (of Tripathi) is to be dismissed. It stands dismissed,? the court said.
The decision may be a result of submissions made by Attorney General GE Vahanvati, called forth to ?assist? the court, that the government does not want the ?uncertainty? to continue as the ?law and order machinery cannot sustain this state of continued animation?.
The day started with Tripathi?s lawyer Mukul Rohtagi trying to fend off criticism as a ?non-serious player who never attended court hearings?. Alleging that the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 led to the Bombay serial blasts, Rohtagi said reconciliation is a better option. Rohtagi said his client needed more time to bring the ?hardened? litigants together.
He blamed the Centre for ?meekly sitting through the prolonged litigation? despite its powers under the Acquisition of Certain Area in Ayodhya Act, 1993, in which the land would be ?vested? with the government to propose building a temple, a mosque, tourist amenities and other public utilities like a library. ?In extraordinary situations, the courts have also innovated,? Rohtagi ended his arguments.
Nirmohi Akhara struck a balanced note that it was against the indefinite continuation of the litigation but favoured a ?time-bound deferment?. It said Justice Sharma?s tenure can be extended to six months or a year.
Sorabjee, appearing for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said ?we are 100% for settlement, we are 100% against the delay of judgement. What is this settlement, what are the terms? there should be some degree of realism?. ?The possibility of a lunatic fringe fermenting trouble does not mean the judiciary should be held at ransom. It is the Games now, later it will be Obama?s visit,? he snubbed Tripathi.
Vahanvati vigorously countered Rohtagi?s version that the government was ?meekly sitting?. He said: ?In 2010, Mr Tripathi wakes up to say that the 1994 decision is wrong. The central government did not sit ?meekly?, I repeat, ?meekly?, and appoint a Receiver. What else is the government supposed to do but respect the Rule of Law?? he said.
?So far settlement has not taken place, but we do not want the uncertainty that is here today to continue. The law and order machinery cannot sustain this state of continued animation for so long,? the AG spoke for the government.