New Delhi, Sept. 28: The Supreme Court Bench, which began Tuesday’s hearing on two petitions to defer the Ayodhya title suit ruling at 10.30 am, closed arguments at around 12.30 pm, after which the judges retired to chambers for consultation.
While the judges refrained from making any observations on the merits of the two petitions, it was not convinced with the arguments of senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, representing Mr Tripathi, that there was still a chance for a negotiated settlement, as rival counsel said all such efforts in the past two decades made by five Prime Ministers — Rajiv Gandhi, V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, P.V. Narasimha Rao and Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee — had failed.
A firm commitment by the Attorney-General, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, on behalf of the Centre that the government was “bound” to implement the court’s verdict clinched the issue for allowing the High Court to go ahead with the pronouncement.
“The most preferred solution is through settlement but that has not taken place. The uncertainty, which is there, cannot continue. We can’t keep the law and order machinery in sustained animation,” the attorney-general submitted.
He said the government had taken a “proactive” stand before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1994 that it would prefer a negotiated settlement, but if that was not possible then it would abide by the court verdict.
“The mandate in the 1994 judgment is for
implementation of the final decision of the suit. This is what we have to do. If there is any possibility of settlement, we welcome it, (but) we don’t want the uncertainty to continue,” Mr Vahanvati said.