Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Ayodhya Title Suit, Verdict Expected in 48 Hours

New Delhi, Sep 28 (PTI): The Supreme Court rejected the plea to defer the verdict on Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit by the Allahabad High Court after the Attorney General said that uncertainty should not be allowed to continue. With the stay lifted, the Allahabad High Court is likely to pronounce its decision in two days. 

AG G E Vahanvati, appearing before a three-judge special bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia, said the most preferred solution to the problem would be settlement but it has not taken place and the uncertainty which is prevailing should not be allowed to continue.

"Settlement, if any possible, we welcome it but we do not want any uncertainty," he told the bench which reserved judgement for 2 PM after two hours of arguments from various parties.

Earlier counsels pleading for deferment of the verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had already fixed a date for the verdict, said the court and the government could try innovative approach to evolve an out-of-court settlement.

However, counsels for all the parties to the dispute except Nirmohi Akhara, opposed the plea for deferment. Appearing for the petitioner pleading for deferment retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathy, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi told the court that the dispute was an emotional issue and the court and the government should make some innovative and proactive approach to evolve a mediated settlement.

On fears that the retirement of one of the three judges of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court shortly could result in de novo hearing of the case, he said there are ways in which the government could overcome the problem.

He said either the retiring judge could be re-appointed or his judgement could be pronounced by the successor judge. Rohatgi contended that there could be no title suit pending after the government acquisition of the land in 1993.

He said the three judges of the Lucknow Bench also agreed on the need for a mediated settlement and had fixed September 24 as deadline. But the dispute was such an emotional issue that a timeline cannot work.

Opposing the plea of Tripathi, a counsel for the Sunni Wakf Board said his petition was motivated and should not be entertained at this stage. The lawyer contended that there must be an element of settlement which is acceptable to all the parties to resolve the dispute and sadly, this is missing here.

Senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad, appearing for one of the parties, said "He (Tripathi) is a non-serious party" who did not appear regularly before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court during the protracted hearing.

He said the plea that the pronouncement of the verdict may lead to adverse consequences should not be considered. "If this arguments of consequences is accepted then even a bail plea could have a negative consequence," he said.

He said, "The High Court judges did try and made repeated attempts to resolve the dispute." The senior lawyer said that no more time is required to be given to the parties for an out-of-court settlement.

Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, who appeared for one of the parties, agreed with Prasad and said "judicial function cannot be made hostage to consequences." Sorabjee said that the out-of-court settlement was tried even by a former prime minister but he could not succeed.

"We are hundred per cent for the settlement, but also hundred per cent against the plea the judgement be deferred," he said. The apex court, on September 23, had stayed for a week the High Court verdict, which was to be pronounced on September 24, after the retired bureaucrat approached it to explore a possibility of an out-of-court settlement.

The apex court had passed the interim stay amidst sharp differences of opinion on the issue of staying the verdict between Justices R V Raveendran and Justices H L Gokhale. In the wake of differences between them, Justices Raveendran and Gokhale issued a notice on the plea and referred the case to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench.

Tripathi's petition pleaded for exploring the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.

The Attorney General said since 1999 the stand of the Union Government has been for settlement which has not taken place. "We would like a resolution of the matter one way or the other. We cannot keep the law and order machinery in sustained animation," he said.

The AG said, "My position is very clear. I am of the view for implementation of the decision of the suit. This is what we have to do as per the mandate of 1994". Vahanvati also referred to the verdict of the Constitutinal bench on the land acquisition at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

He refuted the allegations of Rohatgi, who was appearing for Tripathi, that the Centre sat meekly and only stood as a receiver of the disputed land. He said the Government was committed to maintain the rule of law and was under obligation of the undertaking given by it to the Apex court on September 14, 1994 that it will make attempt to resolve the issue through continuous negotiations.

The Attorney General also countered the allegations of Rohatgi that it was not "pro-active" in attempting to resolve the dispute through settlement and process of negotiation.
He said government believed in respecting the rule of law.

He also countered that the tenure of one of the retiring judges could be extended as the Centre has no power in this regard, which is vested with the Chief Justice of the High Court and to a certain extent recommendations can be made by the apex court collegium.