Detailed arguments were heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday on what would be the consequences of the title suit verdict in the light of the 1994 Supreme Court Constitution Bench’s guidelines for deciding the case by the high court and the parliamentary mandate for acquiring the disputed land with 68 acres of additional land around the demolished structure.

However, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia and Justices Aftab Alam and K.S. Radhakrishnan offered no comment on the possible legal consequences of the verdict.
Despite the stated positions of Hindus and Muslims, who have dispelled any attempted settlement in the past 60 years after Independence, the counsel for both sides, including Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, were almost unanimous that the disputed 2.77 acres of land will have to go to the party that wins the case.
However, Mr Ramesh Chandra Tripathi’s counsel, Mr Mukul Rohtagi, who wanted the verdict deferred, raised doubts over the “enforceability” of the verdict and asked whether the government actually was in a position to implement it considering the known positions of the Hindus and Muslims. “I am not an alarmist that the judgment will lead to riots. It is an issue which needs to be resolved through negotiations when the country is facing so many problems,” Mr Rohtagi, a former additional solicitor-general, argued, questioning the government’s capability to implement the verdict.
He also extensively referred to the provisions of the Ayodhya Land Acquisition Act passed by Parliament in 1993 to give the Centre powers to acquire the disputed land and keep it in its custody till the title suit is decided.
“The government’s possession of the land is meek as the Constitution Bench in the 1994 verdict had said that the government’s right to the land is very limited and not absolute,” he said and then asked how the government could take the stand that it would enforce the verdict and hand over the land to a particular party.
In the light of this position of law, the high court, before deciding the case, should have tried for “mediation”, which was the remedy available to it under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, “but it did not try,” Mr Rohtagi asserted.
He said the high court should not necessarily have asked all the 28 parties to the dispute to negotiate but only the main stake holders — Hindu and Muslim leaders, the government and the political parties.
Counsel for the other parties, though, were more or less agreeable to the explanation offered on the legal position by Mr Rohtagi, but said since a negotiated settlement was neither possible, nor in sight, there was no option left other than a judicial verdict.
But all counsel virtually avoided arguments on whether the judicial verdict would actually be implemented, except Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, who said the government was “bound” to implement it. However, he also used the words “final verdict”. This clearly indicated that the government at present was not so concerned as the matter would ultimately go for a second round of litigation in the Supreme Court on appeal, and till then it would have enough breathing space to draw up future strategy.