Ayodhya verdict on Sept. 30 as Supreme Court clears way

New Delhi : Paving the way for the Allahabad High Court to deliver its judgement in the 60-year-old Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea for deferment of the verdict.

With the Supreme Court clearing the way, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court will pronounce the verdict on Thursday. The announcement came shortly after the Supreme Court rejected a special leave petition moved by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, a former bureaucrat, seeking deferment of verdict.

The Officer on Special Duty in the High Court, Hari Shankar Dubey said that the three-judge special bench comprising Justice S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D.V. Sharma would pronounce the verdict on September 30 at 3.30 pm.

Hours earlier the Supreme Court's three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia in a brief order said: "Having considered in detail the arguments of the parties, we are of the view that the SLP has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the SLP stands dismissed."

Mr. Tripathi had made the plea that another chance should be given for reaching a settlement on the issue through reconciliation and had also sought the postponement apprehending law and order problem.

Mr. Tripathi had approached the Supreme Court after the special bench in the High Court had rejected his similar plea on September 17 by two-one majority and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on him.

The Supreme Court order came after two hours of arguments on a plea by Mr. Tripathi seeking time for working out an out-of-court settlement.

Earlier, Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati said that uncertainty should not be allowed to continue.

Appearing before the bench that included Justices Aftab Alam and K.S. Radhakrishnan, he said the most preferred solution to the problem would be settlement but it has not taken place and the uncertainty which is prevailing should not be allowed to continue.

The three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice gave an unanimous order.

During the arguments, the Attorney General said "Settlement, if any possible, we welcome it but we do not want any uncertainty."

Since 1999, the stand of the Union Government has been for settlement which has not taken place, he said.

"We would like a resolution of the matter in one way or the other. We cannot keep the law and order machinery in sustained animation," Mr. Vahanvati said.

The AG said, "My position is very clear. I am of the view for implementation of the decision of the suit. This is what we have to do as per the mandate of 1994".

Mr. Vahanvati also referred to the verdict of the Constitutional bench on the land acquisition at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

He refuted the allegations of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for Mr. Tripathi, that the Centre sat meekly and only stood as a receiver of the disputed land.

Mr. Vahanvati said the Government was committed to maintain the rule of law and was under obligation of the undertaking given by it to the Supreme Court on September 14, 1994 that it will make attempts to resolve the issue through continuous negotiations.

The Attorney General also countered the allegations of Mr. Rohatgi that it was not "pro-active" in attempting to resolve the dispute through settlement and process of negotiation.

He said government believed in respecting the rule of law. He also countered the argument that the tenure of one of the retiring judges could be extended as the Centre has no power in this regard, which is vested with the Chief Justice of the High Court and only to a certain extent recommendations can be made by the Supreme Court collegium.

The Supreme Court questioned the plea for deferment of the Ayodhya title suits verdict, saying the lawyers appearing in the case were in favour of the Allahabad High Court judgement being pronounced.

"You are running against time because you woke up late. That is after 50 years," the Chief Justice said.

"The question is why you were quiet for all these days. You had to strike chord when the matter was in the High Court," Justice Alam said.

The observations came when Mr. Rohatgi was buttressing the argument that the settlement could be arrived through negotiations.

During the proceedings, Mr. Rohatgi said mediation was not the part of the statute.

Justice Alam said that the lawyers of all the contesting parties are at least in agreement on the issue of delivery of judgement by the Allahabad High Court.

Home Minister takes stock of security

Home Minister P. Chidambaram took stock of the security situation in the country and directed all concerned to ensure peace after the Supreme Court dismissed the plea for deferment of verdict on Ayodhya case.

Chidambaram reviewed the security measures in the wake of the apex court paving the way for the Allahabad High Court to deliver its judgement in the 60-year-old Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.

The Home Minister also visited his Ministry's Control Room and Integrated Operations Centre and reviewed its functioning.

The meeting was attended by top Home Ministry officials and chief of Intelligence agencies.

The Home Ministry has identified 32 sensitive locations across the country -- four of them in Uttar Pradesh -- where there is a potential to "evoke sharp reactions" following the verdict and asked states to be fully alert.

The Centre is keeping ready paramilitary forces at some strategic locations, closer to airports, for immediate deployment in the places of trouble anywhere in the country.

The Home Ministry has already prepared a contingency plan to deal with any situation arising out of the Allahabad High Court judgement.

At a separate meeting to review the Commonwealth Games security, which was also attended by Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar besides others, Chidambaram took stock of the steps being taken to ensure foolproof measures in the Games venues, the Games village as well as the national capital.
News From: http://www.Time2timeNews.com