SC defers Ayodhya verdict till Sept 28

The Supreme Court today stayed for a week the Ayodhya title suit verdict that was due to be pronounced by Allahabad High Court tomorrow and will hear the plea for deferment of the judgement next Tuesday.

The court issued notices to the contesting parties on the petition filed by retired bureacrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi challenging the order of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court order refusing to defer the verdict in the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.

It posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.

A Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the verdict for a week following conflicting views over the issue ofentertaining the petition challenging the High Court order.

Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale, on the other hand, was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.

However, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the Bench, preferred to go by the opinion of Justice Gokhale.

In the order, Justice Raveendran said, "When one of the Judges has a difference of opinion then the tradition is to issue notice."

Notice was also sent to the Attorney General by the Supreme Court.

A Bench of the apex court comprising Justices Altmas Kabir and A K Patnaik had yesterday declined to hear urgently the plea to postpone the Ayodhya title suit verdict.

While refusing to hear the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Tripathi, the Bench had said that it did not have the "determination" to take up the issue and added that it will be listed before another Bench.

Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing for Tripathi, said the Supreme Court may give a healing touch by attempting a last-ditch effort at mediation.

He said it was possible that in the face of Supreme Court notices the rival parties may sit across to find an amicable solution.

Rohatgi said that next Tuesday his side would try to tell the court that the matter of judgement should be deferred so that religious, political and national leaders could try and work out a solution.

He also said it was not a matter of just 10 or 20 parties in the case but related to lakhs and crores of people and the mediation could result in some way out.

Tripathi had yesterday moved the apex court five days after the High Court's Lucknow Bench rejected his petition for deferring the verdict and to allow mediation to find a solution to the contentious dispute.

The Allahabad High Court had also imposed "exemplary costs" of Rs 50,000, terming Tripathi's effort for an out-of-court settlement of the dispute as a "mischievous attempt".

The petition filed by Tripathi sought some time to allow mediation among the parties and also challenged the costs.

Tripathi, in his plea before the apex court, claimed that the verdict might disturb communal harmony and lead to violence in the country.

In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, he cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in "public interest" in view of the apprehension of communal flare up, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal-hit states.

The petition had feared that there would be inadequate security personnel in Uttar Pradesh to provide security.

Tripathi had also referred to an earlier order of the Court on July 27 last that parties concerned are at liberty to approach the Officer on Special Duty for formation of the bench if there was any possibility of disposal of the dispute or arrival at an understanding through consensus.

One of the three judges in the Lucknow bench, however, disagreed with the majority order of September 17 rejecting the plea for deferring the Ayodhya verdict to allow mediation and gave a dissenting opinion that an amicable settlement could have been explored in the protracted legal wrangle.

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, while not concurring with the view of the other two judges--Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal--also said in his dissenting judgement that he wasn't consulted when the three-judge bench gave the order while dismissing the plea for mediation.