SC lifts stay, Ayodhya verdict on Sept 30 - The Allahabad High Court will on Thursday pronounce its verdict on the decades-old title suits seeking ownership of the disputed Ayodhya site, amid signs of an easing of the anxiety about its fallout because of the growing assessment that it may not throw up a clear winner or loser.
This announcement from the HC's Lucknow Bench, which was set to pronounce the judgment in the sensitive case on September 24 but was stopped from doing so by the Supreme Court, came after the apex court dismissed an appeal to defer the verdict in order to explore the possibility for a negotiated resolution of the case which has defied several similar bids.
While it is sure to mark a crucial point in the fight for the site, Thursday's verdict is not going to bring closure to the dispute either.
SC's cryptic "this SLP is dismissed" order without giving any reason came just in time for the Lucknow Bench of Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agrawal and D V Sharma to fix September 30 as the date for judgment, that is, just a day ahead of Justice Sharma's retirement.
The deferment of verdict beyond Justice Sharma's retirement would have required the long drawn-out case to be heard afresh.
That was the reason why political parties as well as parties to the dispute, including those who said that their claim on the site was a matter of faith and beyond judicial scrutiny, joined hands in welcoming SC's refusal to come in the way of the verdict.
Political parties -- Congress, BJP and the Left -- all welcomed SC's hands-off stance.
The response was goaded by something else as well -- a quiet confidence that the HC on Thursday will not settle the ownership issue decisively in favour of either party. Even as the authorities braced for any eventuality, with Centre flashing the 'red alert' and even keeping the IAF ready to move troops, the growing estimate in political circles was that the parties may be able to live with the verdict.
Home minister P Chidambaram last week tried to calm sentiments by speaking about the possibility of the Lucknow Bench delivering more than one verdict. "It is possible that there will be one or more judgments delivered by the three-judge Bench," Chidambaram said as he cautioned people against rushing to the conclusion that "one side has won or the other side has lost".
Of course, the 'losing side', as Chidambaram pointed out, can appeal to SC immediately, thus ensuring that the status quo at Ayodhya prevails.
On Tuesday, the apex court Bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan dismissed the plea of Ramesh Chandra Tripathi and Nirmohi Akhara seeking a deferment, with a remarkably cryptic order.
The 38-word order came after hearings stretched over 140 minutes and marked lengthy, heated arguments from parties opposing Tripathi's plea. Attorney general G E Vahanvati clarified the constitutional grey areas and requested the SC to bring down the curtain on the uncertainty.
The Bench gave a two-paragraph order to tell Tripathi that his petition deserved to be dismissed. "Having considered the detailed arguments advanced in these cases, we are of the view that the special leave petitions deserve to be dismissed."
The shortness of the order, shorn of reasoning, did not go down well with many counsel who argued the matter. Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee said, "The conclusion is absolutely correct. But people of India want to know the reasons or at least some indication as to why the SC dismissed the special leave petition."
Against a host of plaintiffs and defendants represented by Sorabjee, K N Bhat, Anup Chaudhary and Krishnan Venugopal displaying rare unanimity in seeking dismissal of the negotiation plea and lifting of stay on the HC judgment, the two lonely appellants -- Tripathi and Nirmohi Akhara -- through counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Sushil Jain faced an uphill task to convince the Bench to keep the HC judgment deferred given the law and order situation and the Commonwealth Games.
But the AG said it was his view, shared by the Union government, that the prevailing "state of sustained animation" must come to an end as the security forces could not be kept on high alert for a long period of time on the ground of apprehended law and order situation.
He also dispelled arguments proposing exploration of possibility to grant extension to Justice Sharma after retirement by bluntly asking, "Under which provision of Constitution?"
Vahanvati said there was no constitutional provision for appointment of a judge back in his place after retirement and ruled out any government role in getting back Justice Sharma to the HC after his retirement on October 1.
The AG took exception to Rohatgi's argument that the Centre, instead of playing the role of an elder brother and bring parties to the negotiating table for an amicable settlement, just sat meekly and did nothing for the last 15 years.
He said accepting a 1994 constitution Bench judgment of SC asking the Centre to hold on to the acquired land like a receiver till the HC verdict on the title suits was not sitting meekly but respecting rule of law.
"I am here to point out that we welcome a settlement but we do not want a state of sustained uncertainty to continue," the AG said. He was supported by former attorney general Sorabjee, who said asking the SC to stay the HC judgment by arguing communal disturbance was like inducing a threat.
He said, "Giving judgments is a judicial duty of the courts. They are not bothered about the consequences. The government will do its duty by taking care of it. Today, they are citing Commonwealth Games, tomorrow it will be President Obama's visit. Should the courts be bothered about it and not give judgments?"
Senior advocate Ravi Shanker Prasad countered arguments for deferment of judgment by arguing that delay in delivering the verdict could also possibly lead to a law and order situation.
The unanimity among the parties, overcoming their bitterness exhibited during the arguments on the title suits before the HC, to oppose the deferment plea, evoked some surprise. The SC Bench said, "It is very reassuring to see that the parties have sunk their differences and are arguing on the same side at least on the issue of opposing a settlement."
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi may have been successful in stalling the Allahabad HC verdict for at least six days but on Tuesday, the septuagenarian must have been a worried man, thinking how to arrange for Rs 50,000.
If he was a hero on September 23, when the two-judge Bench of the SC not only entertained his plea but stayed pronouncement of the HC verdict, then on Tuesday, he was a loner. No one bothered about him as the other parties went before TV cameras virtually celebrating the dismissal of Tripathi's appeal.
The appeal was filed in the SC after the HC had dismissed his plea for negotiated settlement and saddled him with a cost of Rs 50,000 for bringing in a frivolous request aimed at stalling the verdict.
The apex court's cryptic two-paragraph order only said that his special leave petition was dismissed. This means, the HC order imposing cost on him has been upheld. Now, Tripathi either has to pay up or move another application before the SC seeking condoning of the cost. ( indiatimes.com )
This announcement from the HC's Lucknow Bench, which was set to pronounce the judgment in the sensitive case on September 24 but was stopped from doing so by the Supreme Court, came after the apex court dismissed an appeal to defer the verdict in order to explore the possibility for a negotiated resolution of the case which has defied several similar bids.
While it is sure to mark a crucial point in the fight for the site, Thursday's verdict is not going to bring closure to the dispute either.
SC's cryptic "this SLP is dismissed" order without giving any reason came just in time for the Lucknow Bench of Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agrawal and D V Sharma to fix September 30 as the date for judgment, that is, just a day ahead of Justice Sharma's retirement.
The deferment of verdict beyond Justice Sharma's retirement would have required the long drawn-out case to be heard afresh.
That was the reason why political parties as well as parties to the dispute, including those who said that their claim on the site was a matter of faith and beyond judicial scrutiny, joined hands in welcoming SC's refusal to come in the way of the verdict.
Political parties -- Congress, BJP and the Left -- all welcomed SC's hands-off stance.
The response was goaded by something else as well -- a quiet confidence that the HC on Thursday will not settle the ownership issue decisively in favour of either party. Even as the authorities braced for any eventuality, with Centre flashing the 'red alert' and even keeping the IAF ready to move troops, the growing estimate in political circles was that the parties may be able to live with the verdict.
Home minister P Chidambaram last week tried to calm sentiments by speaking about the possibility of the Lucknow Bench delivering more than one verdict. "It is possible that there will be one or more judgments delivered by the three-judge Bench," Chidambaram said as he cautioned people against rushing to the conclusion that "one side has won or the other side has lost".
Of course, the 'losing side', as Chidambaram pointed out, can appeal to SC immediately, thus ensuring that the status quo at Ayodhya prevails.
On Tuesday, the apex court Bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan dismissed the plea of Ramesh Chandra Tripathi and Nirmohi Akhara seeking a deferment, with a remarkably cryptic order.
The 38-word order came after hearings stretched over 140 minutes and marked lengthy, heated arguments from parties opposing Tripathi's plea. Attorney general G E Vahanvati clarified the constitutional grey areas and requested the SC to bring down the curtain on the uncertainty.
The Bench gave a two-paragraph order to tell Tripathi that his petition deserved to be dismissed. "Having considered the detailed arguments advanced in these cases, we are of the view that the special leave petitions deserve to be dismissed."
The shortness of the order, shorn of reasoning, did not go down well with many counsel who argued the matter. Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee said, "The conclusion is absolutely correct. But people of India want to know the reasons or at least some indication as to why the SC dismissed the special leave petition."
Against a host of plaintiffs and defendants represented by Sorabjee, K N Bhat, Anup Chaudhary and Krishnan Venugopal displaying rare unanimity in seeking dismissal of the negotiation plea and lifting of stay on the HC judgment, the two lonely appellants -- Tripathi and Nirmohi Akhara -- through counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Sushil Jain faced an uphill task to convince the Bench to keep the HC judgment deferred given the law and order situation and the Commonwealth Games.
But the AG said it was his view, shared by the Union government, that the prevailing "state of sustained animation" must come to an end as the security forces could not be kept on high alert for a long period of time on the ground of apprehended law and order situation.
He also dispelled arguments proposing exploration of possibility to grant extension to Justice Sharma after retirement by bluntly asking, "Under which provision of Constitution?"
Vahanvati said there was no constitutional provision for appointment of a judge back in his place after retirement and ruled out any government role in getting back Justice Sharma to the HC after his retirement on October 1.
The AG took exception to Rohatgi's argument that the Centre, instead of playing the role of an elder brother and bring parties to the negotiating table for an amicable settlement, just sat meekly and did nothing for the last 15 years.
He said accepting a 1994 constitution Bench judgment of SC asking the Centre to hold on to the acquired land like a receiver till the HC verdict on the title suits was not sitting meekly but respecting rule of law.
"I am here to point out that we welcome a settlement but we do not want a state of sustained uncertainty to continue," the AG said. He was supported by former attorney general Sorabjee, who said asking the SC to stay the HC judgment by arguing communal disturbance was like inducing a threat.
He said, "Giving judgments is a judicial duty of the courts. They are not bothered about the consequences. The government will do its duty by taking care of it. Today, they are citing Commonwealth Games, tomorrow it will be President Obama's visit. Should the courts be bothered about it and not give judgments?"
Senior advocate Ravi Shanker Prasad countered arguments for deferment of judgment by arguing that delay in delivering the verdict could also possibly lead to a law and order situation.
The unanimity among the parties, overcoming their bitterness exhibited during the arguments on the title suits before the HC, to oppose the deferment plea, evoked some surprise. The SC Bench said, "It is very reassuring to see that the parties have sunk their differences and are arguing on the same side at least on the issue of opposing a settlement."
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi may have been successful in stalling the Allahabad HC verdict for at least six days but on Tuesday, the septuagenarian must have been a worried man, thinking how to arrange for Rs 50,000.
If he was a hero on September 23, when the two-judge Bench of the SC not only entertained his plea but stayed pronouncement of the HC verdict, then on Tuesday, he was a loner. No one bothered about him as the other parties went before TV cameras virtually celebrating the dismissal of Tripathi's appeal.
The appeal was filed in the SC after the HC had dismissed his plea for negotiated settlement and saddled him with a cost of Rs 50,000 for bringing in a frivolous request aimed at stalling the verdict.
The apex court's cryptic two-paragraph order only said that his special leave petition was dismissed. This means, the HC order imposing cost on him has been upheld. Now, Tripathi either has to pay up or move another application before the SC seeking condoning of the cost. ( indiatimes.com )
No comments:
Post a Comment