Ayodhya: SC judges differ,defer

Lead judge Justice R V Raveendran favoured pronouncement of the verdict 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 judgment.

But his colleague,Justice H L Gokhale,differed. He reasoned that any consequences from the judgment tomorrow may see ordinary people suffer.

He pressed for another attempt at conciliation between the disputing parties. If it the case comes on appeal,the parties will be more hardened. In a matter like this,it could be worse. If there is a one per cent chance now of reconciliation,there is zero per cent chance then.

Justice Gokhale said the Supreme Court would be the first to be blamed if passions rise after the verdict tomorrow.

Making it clear that he was bowing to the tradition in court to honour his fellow judges opinion,Justice

Raveendran ordered an interim stay on the judgment.

One of the members of this Bench is of the opinion that the petition should be dismissed and the judgment reserved be pronounced tomorrow. The other member of this Bench is of the opinion that judgment be stayed and notice issued. When one of the members wants 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,petitioner Ramesh Chandra Tripathis 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.

The courts decision to refer the matter to the CJI came after senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad,appearing for Mahant Paramhans Ramachandra Das now dead who had also filed a suit,asked the Bench about the road ahead just when the hearing was about to conclude.

The court asked the Attorney General to be present on the next date to assist the court.

Todays hearing was based on Tripathis petition seeking to defer the judgment,scheduled for Friday. Another Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Altamas Kabir had yesterday declined to hear the case.

Though the petition was not included in the Supreme Courts morning list of fresh cases scheduled for mentioning,it found a place in the list during the lunch break. It was called up for hearing at Justice Raveendrans court at 2 pm.

Rohtagi opened the session,first clarifying that his client Tripathi was not set up by anybody as both sides are opposing my petition seeking to defer tomorrows judgment.

We have seen the aftermath of the Masjid demolition. We as a country have several problems now8230; floods,etc, Rohtagi began.

Is that a ground for postponing a judgment? Jammu and Kashmir,floods8230; these problems you quote are irrelevant to the judgment tomorrow, Justice Raveendran shot back.

To this,Rohtagi said he only wanted time for mediation. Let this court lend the soothing touch to this dispute, he said.

For 50 years you have not been able to settle it. The courts own documents show that a hundred opportunities were given in the past. But both parties had bluntly told the court that they do not want to settle8230; Why do you think that the people of this country are so immature that they cannot accept a judgment? Religious passion will rise only if people raise it. If people dont,passions will not rise, Justice Raveendran responded.

He said it is a strange combination to find Tripathi,out of the 28 litigating parties,the only person seeking deferment.

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 D V 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 Sharmas 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.

Please imagine the situation. If the judgment is not given tomorrow,this may become a festering wound, Chaudhary said.

Ravi Shankar Prasad seconded Chaudhary,saying,Today the country is calm. Reconciliation has been tried at the level of various prime ministers and constitutional courts. Tomorrow,the judgment is at 3.30 pm. This judgment is sought to be deferred in the garb of reconciliation.

At this point,Justice Gokhale intervened to remind that this is the last court.

Courts cannot run away. Judgment has to come anyway. Consequences of the judgment tomorrow will not be felt by these people litigants but the ordinary people. You are aware of the history of this matter,and you will be the first people to blame us if there are consequences, Justice Gokhale said.

Chaudhary,responded: This court has already elicited from us that there is no possibility of a reconciliation. There has never been any in the past 60 years.

To this,Justice Gokhale said: But treat this case as an ordinary persons application.