Senior Union ministers yesterday feigned ignorance of the proposed bill to enlarge the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to settle the Ramjnmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, although the bill is listed in the governments agenda for this session.
The bill figures as item number 9 of the proposed 24 bills listed for introduction during the monsoon session of Parliament.
The list has been prepared by the Lok Sabha secretariat on the directions of the Union parliamentary affairs ministry.
As per the list, the government proposes to introduce a bill to provide for enlargement of jurisdiction of Supreme Court with a view to conferring upon it the jurisdiction and powers to decide the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute.
However, listing of the bill has surprised leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
Some BJP leader apprehended that the government might move the proposed bill surreptitiously.
Bharatiya Janata Party general secretary Sushma Swaraj said the governments intention could be to divert peoples attention from the major issue of corruption confronting the nation.
To hide its failures on different fronts, the government might try to bring the Bharatiya Janata Party into focus once again, she said.
Communist Party of India (CPI) secretary D Raja said bringing such a bill was very much according to the promise made in the common minimum programme of the United Front.
The Bharatiya Janata Party would support the bill, if it intends to empower the apex court to decide whether a temple existed at the disputed site, Swaraj said, adding that We have archaeological evidence to establish that a temple esxisted there.
However, the party would oppose the bill if it intended to empower the Court to decide whether Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. This is a matter of faith and it cannot be decided by any Court.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad working President Ashok Singhal endorsed Swarajs viewpoint that court cannot decide on matters of faith.
However, he added that Ayodhya issue is not a property dispute that can be decided by the Court.
There was no need for such a bill as the site itself has become a deity, and there can be no case againt a deity, he said.
