The Supreme Court today stayed the delivery of the Ayodhya judgment by the Allahabad High Court, scheduled for Friday, invoking its “tradition” of doing so when two judges disagree with each other.
Justice R V Raveendran and Justice H L Gokhale heard arguments for and against postponing the much-awaited decision for over an hour in a crowded court. It was apparent that the presiding judge, Justice Raveendran, was against admitting the petition, moved by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi, who was one of the 27 parties in the title suit before the high court. However, Justice Gokhale wanted to give another chance at conciliation as prayed for by Tiwari.
In view of the differences between the two judges, Justice Raveendran dictated the order, which emphasised that it was the tradition of the court that when two judges differed at the threshold, they agreed on issuing notices to the parties for a hearing.
The petition will now be heard on Tuesday and the judgment will be put on hold till then. The Attorney General has been asked to assist the court. Tuesday was chosen as one of the judges of the high court who heard the case is retiring on Thursday. If he cannot deliver the judgment before that, the whole case will have to be reheard.
The high court had already reheard the case once, as one judge which heard the case for some time was elevated to chief justiceship of another high court.
The present bench heard the case for 60 days and is now ready with its decision.
While all major parties, belonging to both religious groups, insisted that no conciliation was possible and all attempts in this direction by the Supreme Court and the high court had failed over decades, Justice Gokhale observed that “even if one per cent chance” of conciliation remained, it should be tried.
Counsel for the Sunni group stressed that there was “zero per cent” chance. He said the consequences of not delivering the judgment would be serious. There were better chances of settlement when the appeal comes to the Supreme Court against the high court judgment.
Justice Gokhale said once the judgment was passed by the high court, the position of the parties would be harder and therefore the chances of an agreement would recede further.
He also asked all the parties to consider the consequences for ordinary people.
“Look at the petition as one by an ordinary citizen. Consequences for ordinary people is serious, but not for the parties before the court. If there are serious consequences after the delivery of the judgment, you all will blame us, saying that if the judgment had been stayed it would not have happened. Why are you averse to deferment for a few days more?” he asked the parties who wanted the judgment to be delivered tomorrow.
They replied that the petition was a mala fide exercise. Tripathi had not appeared even once in the 60 days of hearing the case in the high court and he did not participate even in the conciliation attempt.
Ravi Shankar Prasad, who had argued the case in the high court submitted that the Supreme Court in a constitution bench judgment in 1994 had recorded that a settlement was not possible and asked the court below to decide the issues.
Therefore, that decision should be followed and the high court judgment should be delivered. Conciliation attempt can be made when the appeal comes to the Supreme Court, he said.
He also asserted that the people of the country are mature and they can be trusted to remain calm after the high court judgment. Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi, representing Tripathi, said that the judgment might result in rousing of religious passion. The Supreme Court was the final court and one word form it will “soothe nerves.” When pointed out that the country was facing floods, the Kashmir problem and other issues, Justice Raveendran asked, “is that a ground for postponing the judgment?” Last week, Tripathi had approached the high court for deferring the judgment, but it was rejected by a majority of 2:1. It also imposed “exemplary cost” cost of Rs 50,000 on Tripathi calling his prayer for an out of court settlement as “mischievous”.
This sparked off a controversy with the dissenting judge, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, alleging that he was not consulted by his brother judges on the bench, Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal, while dismissing Tripathi’s petition. Tiwari moved his petition yesterday before another bench of the Supreme Court, but its presiding judge, Justice Altamas Kabir recused [recused] from the case. Therefore it came up before the new bench today.
