New Delhi:
Sixty years after it first went to court, there shall be a verdict in the Ayodhya title suit on Thursday. This, after the Supreme Court today rejected a petition seeking that the verdict be deferred and said the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court could go ahead and deliver judgment on the property dispute.
The High Court is expected to deliver its verdict on Thursday, September 30, after 3 pm. On Friday, October 1 one of the judges hearing the case, Dharamvir Sharma, retires.
The verdict in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute will decide whether the 2.7 acres of disputed land on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni Central Waqf Board or to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.
In the Supreme Court today, Chief Justice of India HS Kapadia read out a one-line order to reject the petition of retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi, who had sought that the verdict be deferred and the matter be settled through reconciliation. Justice Kapadia said, "Having considered the detailed arguments advanced in this cases, we are of the view that the special leave petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, we hereby pass the following order: Special leave petition (C) Nos 27466-27467 of 2010 stands dismissed."
The court heard arguments for over two-and-a-half hours before announcing its order. The decision of the three-judge bench - comprising Chief Justice Kapadia, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice KS Radhakrishnan - was unanimous. (Read: Will High Court judge DV Sharma get extension?)
Centre appeals for calm, issues advisory (Read: Centre issues advisory ahead of the Ayodhya verdict)
With a date set for the verdict, the Centre has appealed for calm. In an advisory issued today, the Home Ministry also said that,
Today's Supreme Court decision has been welcomed as an end to uncertainty by major political parties and by most litigants in the Ayodhya case. Law Minister Veerappa Moily said, "Nobody wants uncertainty prolonged," and added that the government "always lent support for compromise" or an out-of-court settlement. (Read: Main parties rule out settlement)
"I am confident that the people of India are mature enough to maintain equilibrium. Anybody can come to the Supreme Court. As far as the government is concerned, we have maintained secular, impartial stand and will continue to do so," the Law Minister added. (Watch:Nobody wants uncertainty prolonged: Moily)
Senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh, who is in charge of Uttar Pradesh, too said, "The Congress party has always said that if there is a possibility, all parties involved should reach a settlement, or accept whatever decision is delivered by the High Court. And now, whatever verdict is delivered by the High Court, if it does not make anyone happy, they have the right to approach the Supreme Court. The Congress spokesman Janardhan Dwivedi said it was the responsibility of every citizen to maintain communal harmony. (Watch: We welcome the judgement, says Congress)
The BJP welcomed the decision and spokesman Prakash Javadekar said, "this decision of the Supreme Court has cleared the atmosphere of uncertainty and we will wait for the Allahabad High Court's verdict."
Ram Madhav of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) said a, "deliberate attempt was made to derail the judicial process by approaching the Supreme Court. The petitioner had no locus standi and that's why whatever the Supreme Court has said today is the right thing...Now that the petition has been dismissed, the whole country is looking forward to tomorrow's judgement - tomorrow or day after, whenever it comes, the country is waiting. Once the judgement is out, it'll be one step forward in the legal process. Rest of the things will be deliberated upon afterwards."
Petitioner upset, others happy
Rejecting the plea for deferment the Supreme Court has also said that the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Tripathi will be fined Rs 50,000. Tripathi's counsel Mukul Rohatgi slammed the Centre, saying it had played a very passive role. The Centre was made a party in the case for the first time by the Supreme Court. The Attorney General represented the Centre in court. (Read: Centre doesn't want uncertainty, says Attorney General)
Rohatgi said he had expected the Centre to call the different parties to the negotiating table and accused it of not being interested in resolving the issue. (Read: Court must give innovative solution, say petitioners)
Sunil Kumar Jain the lawyer for the Nirmohi Akhada, a key party in the case, one that was supporting Tripathi's plea for deferring the verdict and that argued for a three-month stay to facilitate reconciliation, said the judges should have briefly given their reasons for dismissing deferment. (Watch: All parties except Nirmohi Akhara oppose deferment)
Apart from these, all litigants welcomed the decision. Zafaryab Gilani of the Babri Masjid Action Committee said there was always scope for talks after the judgement. "All major litigants wanted this," Jilani said. The Sunni Waqf Board too welcomed the decision. (Watch: We are very happy, says Sunni Waqf Board) | (Watch: No need to repeat arguments, says Babri Masjid Action Committee)
Ravi Shankar Prasad, in his capacity as a senior lawyer for one of the parties in the case, said he hoped for early verdict. (Watch: Ravi Shankar Prasad welcomes Court decision)
The High Court is expected to deliver its verdict on Thursday, September 30, after 3 pm. On Friday, October 1 one of the judges hearing the case, Dharamvir Sharma, retires.
The verdict in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute will decide whether the 2.7 acres of disputed land on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni Central Waqf Board or to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.
In the Supreme Court today, Chief Justice of India HS Kapadia read out a one-line order to reject the petition of retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi, who had sought that the verdict be deferred and the matter be settled through reconciliation. Justice Kapadia said, "Having considered the detailed arguments advanced in this cases, we are of the view that the special leave petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, we hereby pass the following order: Special leave petition (C) Nos 27466-27467 of 2010 stands dismissed."
The court heard arguments for over two-and-a-half hours before announcing its order. The decision of the three-judge bench - comprising Chief Justice Kapadia, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice KS Radhakrishnan - was unanimous. (Read: Will High Court judge DV Sharma get extension?)
Centre appeals for calm, issues advisory (Read: Centre issues advisory ahead of the Ayodhya verdict)
With a date set for the verdict, the Centre has appealed for calm. In an advisory issued today, the Home Ministry also said that,
- 32 places have been identified as "sensitive."
- Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have been identified as trouble-prone.
- Central forces would be 10 minutes away and on call with extensive deployment near sensitive spots.
- India Air Force aircraft would be on standby to transport troops to eight places across the country. (Watch: Appeals for calm after Ayodhya verdict)
Today's Supreme Court decision has been welcomed as an end to uncertainty by major political parties and by most litigants in the Ayodhya case. Law Minister Veerappa Moily said, "Nobody wants uncertainty prolonged," and added that the government "always lent support for compromise" or an out-of-court settlement. (Read: Main parties rule out settlement)
"I am confident that the people of India are mature enough to maintain equilibrium. Anybody can come to the Supreme Court. As far as the government is concerned, we have maintained secular, impartial stand and will continue to do so," the Law Minister added. (Watch:Nobody wants uncertainty prolonged: Moily)
Senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh, who is in charge of Uttar Pradesh, too said, "The Congress party has always said that if there is a possibility, all parties involved should reach a settlement, or accept whatever decision is delivered by the High Court. And now, whatever verdict is delivered by the High Court, if it does not make anyone happy, they have the right to approach the Supreme Court. The Congress spokesman Janardhan Dwivedi said it was the responsibility of every citizen to maintain communal harmony. (Watch: We welcome the judgement, says Congress)
The BJP welcomed the decision and spokesman Prakash Javadekar said, "this decision of the Supreme Court has cleared the atmosphere of uncertainty and we will wait for the Allahabad High Court's verdict."
Ram Madhav of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) said a, "deliberate attempt was made to derail the judicial process by approaching the Supreme Court. The petitioner had no locus standi and that's why whatever the Supreme Court has said today is the right thing...Now that the petition has been dismissed, the whole country is looking forward to tomorrow's judgement - tomorrow or day after, whenever it comes, the country is waiting. Once the judgement is out, it'll be one step forward in the legal process. Rest of the things will be deliberated upon afterwards."
Petitioner upset, others happy
Rejecting the plea for deferment the Supreme Court has also said that the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Tripathi will be fined Rs 50,000. Tripathi's counsel Mukul Rohatgi slammed the Centre, saying it had played a very passive role. The Centre was made a party in the case for the first time by the Supreme Court. The Attorney General represented the Centre in court. (Read: Centre doesn't want uncertainty, says Attorney General)
Rohatgi said he had expected the Centre to call the different parties to the negotiating table and accused it of not being interested in resolving the issue. (Read: Court must give innovative solution, say petitioners)
Sunil Kumar Jain the lawyer for the Nirmohi Akhada, a key party in the case, one that was supporting Tripathi's plea for deferring the verdict and that argued for a three-month stay to facilitate reconciliation, said the judges should have briefly given their reasons for dismissing deferment. (Watch: All parties except Nirmohi Akhara oppose deferment)
Apart from these, all litigants welcomed the decision. Zafaryab Gilani of the Babri Masjid Action Committee said there was always scope for talks after the judgement. "All major litigants wanted this," Jilani said. The Sunni Waqf Board too welcomed the decision. (Watch: We are very happy, says Sunni Waqf Board) | (Watch: No need to repeat arguments, says Babri Masjid Action Committee)
Ravi Shankar Prasad, in his capacity as a senior lawyer for one of the parties in the case, said he hoped for early verdict. (Watch: Ravi Shankar Prasad welcomes Court decision)
How may i help you today
Show full article
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
