The Court146;s options on Ayodhya

The date is set - rather firmly. The Supreme Court declined the Government8217;s fervent request to hear the matter before February 21. So,...

The date is set 8211; rather firmly. The Supreme Court declined the Government8217;s fervent request to hear the matter before February 21. So, however inopportune the date, the Government8217;s application seeking the vacation of last year8217;s interim order on the acquired land in Ayodhya will be heard right on the eve of the Dharam Sansad. The timing rules out the possibility of more than a single hearing prior to the February 22 deadline set by the VHP.

Politically speaking, everything boils down to what the Supreme Court decides then and there at that solitary hearing on February 21. The Government has been publicly warned by the VHP to find some legal means of handing over a part of the Ayodhya land by the very next day. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India V N Khare, therefore, clarified that the court registry had scheduled the hearing of the application in the routine course. The implication is reassuring: The court fixed the February 21 hearing without any regard for the VHP8217;s February 22 deadline.

The interim order which is sought to be vacated put two kinds of fetters on the 70 acre land acquired by the Government in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition. One, it forbade any religious activity on the acquired land. The interim order passed on March 13/14, 2002 also entrusted the Government with the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the acquired land.

There are three possible scenarios:

SCENARIO ONE: The court reacts incredulously to the Government8217;s claim in its application that there has been a qualitative change in circumstances since the interim order was passed last March in the wake of the Gujarat riots and in the run up to the Shila Puja threatened to be held by the VHP. The court refers to the threatening noises made by various VHP leaders, most notably Praveen Togadia, in the run up to the forthcoming Dharam Sansad to puncture the Government8217;s claim that 8216;8216;the situation prevailing when the order was passed was far different from the situation prevailing today.8217;8217; The court sees the VHP8217;s February 22 deadline to the Government as a fresh threat to law and order. The court therefore declines to interfere with the interim order, which means the status quo will continue.

SCENARIO TWO: The court agrees to modify a part of the interim order 8211; the part that bans any religious activity on the acquired land. The court reaffirms the prohibition on handing over any part of the acquired land to others but lifts the ban on religious activities. This is to restore a right that existed prior to the interim order. From December 1992 to March 2002, the makeshift temple on the disputed site saw puja being performed every day by a priest and devotees were allowed to have darshan from a safe distance. The court ended this arrangement last year because of the VHP8217;s threat then to hold a puja of carved stones near the disputed site, apparently as a prelude to temple construction.

SCENARIO THREE: The court is convinced by the Government8217;s claim that there is no danger whatsoever to law and order in vacating the interim order. So, it vacates the interim order in the teeth of opposition from various Muslim parties. As for their fear that the vacation of the interim order will embolden the Government to hand over the acquired land to the VHP, the court says it cannot come in the way of whatever the Government does within the parameters of the law laid down by the 1994 Constitution bench judgment.

Clearly, the third scenario is the least likely scenario. Senior advocate O P Sharma, representing petitioner Mohammad Aslam Bhure, is confident that the court will be disinclined to lift the ban not just on transferring the land but also on religious activities. 8216;8216;The judges will be wary of giving the VHP any scope to rouse communal passions from the acquired land,8217;8217; says Sharma. Congress MP R K Anand, who represented Babri Masjid Action Committee when the interim order was passed, expects the court to dismiss the Government8217;s application. 8216;8216;The court will see through the fact that the BJP-led Government is acting in collusion with the VHP,8217;8217; Anand asserts. But the second scenario cannot be ruled out, especially if the VHP undertakes not to misuse the puja at the disputed site.