The Allahabad High Court, which is to pronounce its verdict on the Ayodhya title suits on September 30, soon after the pronouncement, either on oral or written request, can grant leave for appeal to the losing parties to move the Supreme Court and suspend the operation of the judgment.
Even if the High Court refuses to grant leave for appeal to move the Supreme Court, the parties concerned can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution seeking stay of the judgment until the disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court after consideration of the issue on merits.
Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for petitioner Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, argued in the Supreme Court on Tuesday that to avoid tensions — that might arise out of the pronouncement of the verdict — and maintain communal harmony between the two religious groups, the Central government should take a proactive stand and not remain quiet.
Mr. Rohatgi said the 1994 Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the law to acquire about 70 acres of land in and around the temple in Ayodhya required reconsideration.
He pointed out that while upholding the law, the Supreme Court, by a majority of 3:2, had said that the Centre would be a Receiver of the land and revived the suits in the High Court. Once the acquisition law was upheld, how the Centre could be made as a Receiver. Counsel quoted the Supreme Court judgment wherein, reference to the Centre's role to find an amicable settlement was made and said that from 1994 till today the Centre had remained quiet.
“Why can't the Centre take a proactive role,” Mr. Rohatgi asked, and said even now a settlement could be attempted under the aegis of the Central government to uphold public order and maintain communal harmony. The Centre could extend the tenure of the retiring judge beyond October 1 and by this the judgment could be deferred for the time being till mediation was explored. If it failed, the court could be informed and thereafter the judgment could be pronounced, he added.
Refuting the charge that the Centre was keeping quiet, Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati said that since 1994, the stand of the Union government had been for a negotiated settlement, which, however, had not taken place. Mr. Vahanvati said the government was committed to maintaining the rule of law and was under obligation of the undertaking given by it to the Supreme Court on September 14, 1994 that it would make attempts to resolve the issue through continuous negotiations.
Mr. Vahanvati said, “We [Centre] are not parties to the proceedings in the High Court.” He added: “Our mandate as per the 1994 Constitution Bench judgment was to function as Receiver and implement the decision of the High Court in these suits. This is what we have to do. If there is any possibility of settlement, we welcome it. But we don't want any uncertainty to continue.”
On granting extension to the retiring judge, Mr. Vahanvati said the Centre had no role to play. The recommendation for extension should come from the High Court Chief Justice in consultation with the President of India. This proposal must be approved by the Supreme Court collegium, he said, and added “if this proposal is approved by the collegium, of course we will extend the tenure.”
“All possibilities explored”
Senior Counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad, appearing for Baba Dharamdas, and Senior Counsel Anup George Chaudhary, appearing for the Sunni Central Board of Wakfs, Uttar Pradesh (both plaintiffs in the suits) argued that previous attempts by three Prime Ministers and Sankaracharyas for a negotiated settlement had failed. The High Court explored all possibilities and only after everything had failed decided to pronounce the verdict. They submitted that Mr. Tripathi, a defendant in one of the suits, was not serious about negotiations as he had not appeared even once during the final arguments in the High Court when opportunities were given to him.
Directing the High Court not to pronounce the verdict was impermissible under law, they argued.
The former Attorney-General and Senior Counsel Soli Sorabjee, appearing for one of the parties, said apprehension of law and order was not a ground for not pronouncing the judgment. Maintenance of law and order was the responsibility of the State government and that could not be the reason for postponing the judgment. He cautioned the Supreme Court against setting a bad precedent by deferring the High Court verdict.
Seeing that lawyers appearing for three of the four plaintiffs (in the High Court) were opposing mediation, Justice Aftab Alam, who is on the three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, remarked that the lawyers of all the contesting parties “are at least in agreement on the issue of delivery of judgment.” The Bench headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia dismissed the petition filed by Mr. Tripathi seeking negotiated settlement.
