Ayodhya in SC today: Plaintiff wants deferral,govts play safe

“We will pray the SC for appointment of a mediator to resolve the dispute through negotiation,and we have decided to seek time for three months. If a mediator is appointed,he can call all parties to one table,seek their opinions. A mediator appointed by the SC will be a neutral person and can assert his position,” said R L Verma,counsel for Nirmohi Akhara.

“Our plea is that Justice D V Sharma of the High Court,who is due to retire on October 1,should be given extension of tenure… there will be no problem in pronouncement of the judgment after three months,” Verma said.

On December 17,1959 the Nirmohi Akhara and its Mahant filed a suit against Receiver Priya Dutt Ram and others including the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers. They sought removal of the Receiver and the property delivered to the plaintiff.

Besides the Akhara,the other original title suit plaintiffs are Gopal Singh Visharad,Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and Ramlalla Virajman. Except the Akhara,no one is in favour of delaying the verdict.

Rajendra Singh,son of the late Gopal Singh Visharad,said there was no chance of compromise on the matter. “We always preferred a court verdict,my lawyers will oppose Tripathi’s application”,Singh said. Ajay Pandey,associated with the suit filed on behalf of Ramlalla Virajman,said: “There is no chance of compromise. I am in touch with my colleagues who have reached Delhi.”

Meanwhile,the Centre is learnt to have told Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati that though there are security concerns,especially in view of the Commonwealth Games,the government does not favour any further stay on the High Court verdict. The final decision,the government believes,is best left to the court.

The UP government too is ready to inform the Supreme Court that it is prepared to deal with any situation arising out of the High Court verdict. At the same time,if the court asks,the state government will spell out the law and order scenario.

While staying the High Court verdict scheduled for September 24,the Supreme Court had issued notice to all parties.

In separate affidavits filed today,Swami Chakrapani of All India Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs 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 High Court.

The affidavits 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 Sharma retires on October 1.