The Allahabad high court on Friday rejected a petition for the deferment of the Ayodhya title suits verdict, saying there was no merit in the application. The high court also imposed a fine on petitioner Ramesh Chandra Tripathi. The plea had sought an amicable out-of-court settlement. The judgment in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute will finally be delivered on September 24.
As Uttar Pradesh has been put on high alert, the Centre is rushing 40 companies of Central forces to the state. The state had, however, demanded over 600 companies of Central forces.
The big brother of the Sangh Parivar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, felt the court has done the “right thing” by rejecting the application since it was an “unnecessary attempt to delay the verdict”. The Congress, on the other hand, said whatever the verdict be, the party will abide by it.
“From the beginning, the Congress has held that the issue should be settled amicably through dialogue. Now, when the issue is in court, the party will abide by the court verdict,” AICC general secretary Janardan Dwivedi said. The government has made a strong appeal for communal harmony and peace ahead of the judgment.
But the BJP, which had brought the Ayodhya issue to the centrestage of national politics two decades ago, remained tight-lipped.
With the judgment on the title suits due September 24, unprecedented security has been given to the three judges who will be protected by over 1,000 police personnel. The high court premises in Lucknow will be out of bounds for the common man as well as the media.
However, barely an hour before the court rejected the deferment plea, the Nirmohi Akhara, one of the respondents in the case, moved an application saying they were not averse to a dialogue to resolve the dispute.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the special bench of the Allahabad high court, the counsel of the Nirmohi Akhara, Ranjit Lal, said they were open to any dialogue for an amicable solution but maintained that it should be a time-bound process.
“We have no objection if 10 days’ time is given for an amicable solution and even deferment of the court verdict for a few days from September 24,” the respondent said.
In New Delhi, BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said her party is “not commenting on the issue”. The BJP has decided to speak on the issue only after the verdict.
However, BJP vice-president and Hindutva hardliner Vinay Katiyar said that “if needed Ram bhakts (devotees) would approach the Supreme Court and will even try building consensus to construct a Ram temple (at the disputed site) through legislation”. He said, “Like Mecca and Jerusalem are inseparable from Muslims and Christians respectively, so is Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya for Hindus.”
Meanwhile, the parties involved in the case had also voiced opposition to the deferment plea, stating there was no scope for reconciliation or compromise in a case that had been in court for more than 60 years.
The special bench, comprising Justice S.U. Khan, Justice D.V. Sharma and Justice Sudhir Agarwal, had asked the parties concerned if they were interested in any discussion for a compromise. But none showed interest, after which the deferment plea was rejected. If the court had granted the plea, the verdict could have been delayed by six months.
“... The application lacks bona fide and is a clear attempt to divert, deviate and also to create obstruction in the final disposal of this matter after more than six decades without there being any reason whatsoever. Considering also the fact that all other learned counsel appearing for different parties, whether plaintiffs or defendants, have seriously opposed it, we have no hesitation in rejecting this application,” the court said. The judges observed that the applicant has without lawful excuse or reason filed this application and “we hold this attempt mischievous”, and, therefore, “he deserves to be imposed exemplary costs”.