As the Supreme Court deferred the pronouncement of the crucial Ayodhya land dispute judgment by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court due on Friday, questions are being raised by over two dozen litigating parties about the next course of action, particularly in the light of one of the three judges of the high court due to retire on October 1.

The immediate next possible course on September 28, when the deferral petition will come up again before the highest court, is that it might go to a larger bench, considering the sharp differences between the two judges — Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale — on entertaining the petition.
In view of this, all eyes will now turn to Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapaidia as what decision he takes about listing of the case on September 28, as senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad, counsel for one of the litigants, after Thursday’s hearing brought this aspect to the sharply divided bench, which said the court would look into this aspect.
Since the Supreme Court has issued notice to Attorney-General Goolam E, Vahanvati, seeking his assistance as well as opinion on the deferment issue, a clearer picture might emerge after he makes his stand as well as that of the Centre known. The court is already familiar with the positions of all the 28 parties to the four title suits.
If, on September 28, the Supreme Court comes to the conclusion that there are some “real chances and hope” of a negotiated settlement, it is almost certain to extend the stay on the verdict irrespective of the impending retirement of Justice D.V. Sharma of the Allahabad high court.
To overcome the problem of his retirement, Justice Gokhale gave enough indication to the Centre that it has the power under the law to deal with such a situation. Though he did not elaborate, the inference being drawn by the counsel for the litigating parties was that the Union government could “reappoint” Justice Sharma on an ad hoc basis till the verdict is finally delivered.
If this course is not adopted, then there is a real chance of the verdict being deferred “indefinitely” as the Supreme Court was informed that it took the high court bench 90 days to complete the arguments on the vexed issue.
Any new judge included in the bench might “insist” on hearing the arguments all over again, bringing the case back to square one, and that is the real apprehension of the litigating parties and the Supreme Court is certainly alive to the problem.
There is even a chance that the Chief Justice of India might recommend to the Centre that it give an ad hoc appointment to the retiring judge in these “exceptional circumstances” by using his discretionary powers under the Constitution, if the court is “convinced” that a negotiated settlement is possible.
Since all these possibilities involve a series of legal proceedings, it seems clear that deferment of the verdict will go well beyond the Commonwealth Games, which appears to be the primary focus of the Centre at the moment as it would not like the judgment on a “religiously sensitive” issue like Ayodhya to come in the middle of Games preparations, adding to its worries and compounding its problems.