The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed two petitions to defer the Ayodhya title suit ruling and cleared the decks for the Lucknow bench of the Allhahabd high court to pronounce judgment in the 60-year-old case. Soon after this, it was announced that the three-member high court bench would deliver its verdict at 3.30 pm on Thursday, September 30.

The September 30 date fixed by the Lucknow bench is of some importance as one of the judges of the three-member bench, Justice D.V. Sharma, is due to retire on October 1. The other two judges on the bench are Justices S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agarwal.
Preferring not to comment on the merits of the case and offering no major observation during the hearing of arguments by a battery of senior advocates for the contesting parties, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices Aftab Alam and K.S. Radhakrishnan, in a very brief order, rejected two special leave petitions by former bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi to allow the contestants a last chance for a negotiated settlement.
“Having considered the detailed arguments advanced in these cases, we are of the view that the special leave petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, we hereby pass the following order: the SLPs ... stand dismissed,” said the Chief Justice of India, readying the order from his diary as the court reassembled at 2 pm.
The only notable observation came from Justice Alam, who said: “We are running out of time because you woke up very late. It (the case) is going on for the past 50 years.”
Justice Alam further asked: “Why were you quiet all these years. Why is this petition only before the judgment is to be pronounced?”
The Supreme Court bench, which began Tuesday’s hearing at 10.30 am, closed arguments at around 12.30 pm, after which the judges retired to chambers for consultation.
While the judges refrained from making any observations on the merits of the two petitions, it was not convinced with the arguments of senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, representing Mr Tripathi, that there was still a chance for a negotiated settlement, as rival counsel said all such efforts in the past two decades made by five Prime
Ministers — Rajiv Gandhi, V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, P.V. Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee — had failed.
A firm commitment by attorney-general Goolam E. Vahanvati on behalf of the Centre that the government was “bound” to implement the court’s verdict clinched the issue for allowing the high court to go ahead with the pronouncement.
“The most preferred solution is through settlement but that has not taken place. The uncertainty, which is there, cannot continue. We can’t keep the law and order machinery in sustained animation,” the attorney-general submitted.
He said the government had taken a “proactive” stand before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1994 that it would prefer a negotiated settlement, but if that was not possible then it would abide by the court verdict.
“The mandate in the 1994 judgment is for implementation of the final decision of the suit. This is what we have to do. If there is any possibility of settlement, we welcome it, (but) we don’t want the uncertainty to continue,” Mr Vahanvati said.
The bitter rivals — Hindu religious leaders and organisations, the UP Sunni Waqf Bord and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board — stood on the same side seeking dismissal of the petitions.
While former attorney-general Soli J. Sorabjee, appearing for the Muslim law board, said the plea for a negotiated settlement was “belated” and there were not even terms and reference for the settlement before the court.
“I was associated with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. Prior to that, other Prime Ministers, including V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar, made attempts to settle the issue but failed. If it (deferment) is due to the apprehension of law and order, should the judicial system be held to ransom? There is an argument(about the) Commonwealth Games, and then it will be (US President Barack) Obama’s visit,” Mr Sorabjee said, and asked: “Should the judicial process be halted on such grounds?”
Waqf board counsel Anoop George Chaudhary and Hindu leader Dharam Das’s lawyer Ravi Shankar Prasad also opposed the deferment on the identical grounds. Mr Chaudhary, like Mr Sorabjee, gave details about the attempted settlement by different Prime Ministers and Mr Prasad said the matter was ultimately bound to come to the Supreme Court in appeal, when the court would have a larger “spectrum” for its adjudication.
He said the 1994 verdict had clearly “mandated” the Centre to implement the court verdict on the title suit and it was bound by its commitment given to the Constitution Bench.
Mr Tripathi’s petition was only supported by the “Nirmohi Akhara”, whose counsel Sushil Jain claimed that “in the last 60 years, no serious attempts were made for s negotiated settlement.” He said the Ayodhya issue had virtually been spoiled by “outsiders ... as there are no problems between local people. Had it not been for outside interference, the issue could have been resolved,” Mr Jain claimed.