As the government had its fingers crossed on the sensitive Ayodhya issue, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the pronouncement of the Allahabad high court judgment on the title suit by Hindus and Muslims for the ownership of the 2.77 acres of land on which the demolished Babri Masjid stood.
The interim stay was granted by a division bench comprising Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale till September 28 despite sharp differences between them on entertaining a petition by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, one of the parties to the suit, for deferment of the verdict and giving the litigants a last chance to find a negotiated settlement. While Justice Raveendra was not inclined to entertain the petition, saying “if in 50 years you have not been able to settle the dispute despite hundreds of opportunities, there is no reason for allowing the issue to remain as a festering wound,” but Justice Gokhale said though there might be little chance of the negotiations to succeed, “yet if there is even one per cent chance, why not it be given a try?”
“If it (verdict) is postponed for some time, what is the prejudice? There may not be change in the stand of the parties, but when a request is made to this court, what is the harm to give a chance. You will be the first people to blame us if there is (any) consequences (of the verdict),” Justice Gokhale told senior advocates Anoop George Chaudhary and Ravi Shankar Prasad, opposing the deferment.
Mr Chaudhary appeared for the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and Mr Prasad represented Dharam Das, legal heir of the late Ram Chandra Paramahans, who was one of the ardent supporters of the Ram temple movement.
However, Justice Raveendran tried to take a rather “pragmatic” view, looking at the past experience of failed attempts for negotiations, and asked Mr Tripathi’s lawyer Mukul Rohtagi — “Do you think the people of this country are not so mature that they will not accept the judgment of the court” — when he tried to project that the verdict might “flare up religious passion” due to “emotions” of both the communities attached to the case.
“We only want deferment for some time to enable the parties to try for a negotiated settlement. It is not the case only concerning the 28 parties to the dispute, it transcends much beyond that and affects the entire nation, millions of its people. The Supreme Court’s words will certainly have a soothing effect,” Mr Rohtagi argued, while even referring to the existing problem in Kashmir.
Justice Raveendran countered him, observing that “religious passion will be raised only if the people try to raise them”, and chided the counsel for bringing in the Kashmir issue, saying: “Don’t bring irrelevant things.”
Strangely, Mr Chaudhary and Mr Prasad, representing opposite sides in the high court, joined hands in the Supreme Court to oppose the petition for deferring the verdict, terming Mr Tripathi a “non-serious litigant” and even accused him of missing the crucial hearings in the high court on the deferment issue.
Both the lawyers said the matter of “negotiated settlement” was argued in detail in the high court, and the opposite parties had “categorically” submitted that there was no possibility of any resolution through negotiations.
When Mr Prasad and Mr Chaudhary pointed out that one of the three high court judges, Justice D.V. Sharma, is due to retire on October 1, which might delay the case indefinitely, Justice Gokhale said that could be taken care of by the Centre as there were enough provisions in the law to deal with such situations.
Mr Prasad argued that the better course left for the Supreme Court was to hear the case in detail when it comes before it in appeal after the high court verdict as that would give it (Supreme Court) a “wider spectrum” to deal with the entire issue.
Following the arguments and differing opinion between the judges, Justice Raveendran passed a brief order issuing notices to the litigating 27 parties, saying that notices were being issued by keeping with the Supreme Court’s tradition that if there were differences between two judges on admission of a petition, notices are issued despite the divergent views.
The notice was also issued to Attorney-General of India Goolam E. Vahanvati, seeking his assistance in adjudication of the matter. All the parties were asked to appear on September 28 to make their stand clear on whether the judgment should be deferred.
After the order was passed, Mr Prasad pointed out that if the opinion of the judges remained divided on September 28, the case should then be referred to a larger bench, to which Justice Raveendran, who was presiding, said: “We will see to it.”
***
Bulk SMS ban stays till Sept. 29
New Delhi: The Union government on Thursday extended till September 29 the ban on bulk SMSes and MMSes after the Supreme Court stayed for one week the Ayodhya title suit verdict that was due to be pronounced Friday by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court.
The ban is a preventive measure to foil mischief-making.