Sept. 23: Though the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the pronouncement of the Allahabad high court judgment, Justice R.V. Raveendran tried to take a rather “pragmatic” view, looking at the past experience of failed attempts for negotiations, and asked Mr Tripathi’s lawyer Mr Mukul Rohtagi — “Do you think the people of this country are not so mature that they will not accept the judgment of the court” — when he tried to project that the verdict might “flare up religious passion” due to “emotions” of both the communities attached to the case.
“We only want deferment for some time to enable the parties to try for a negotiated settlement. It is not the case only concerning the 28 parties to the dispute, it transcends much beyond that and affects the entire nation. The Supreme Court’s words will certainly have a soothing effect,” Mr Rohtagi argued and even mentioned the Kashmir issue.
Justice Raveendran countered him, observing that “religious passion will be raised only if the people try to raise them”, and chided the counsel for bringing in the Kashmir issue, saying: “Don’t bring irrelevant things.”
Strangely, Mr Anoop George Chaudhary and Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, representing opposite sides in the high court, joined hands in the SC to oppose the petition for deferring the verdict, terming Mr Tripathi a “non-serious litigant” and even accused him of missing the crucial hearings in the high court on the deferment issue.
Mr Chaudhary appeared for the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and Mr Prasad represented Dharam Das, legal heir of the late Ram Chandra Paramahans, who was one of the ardent supporters of the Ram temple movement. Both the lawyers said the matter of “negotiated settlement” was argued in detail and the opposite parties had “categorically” submitted that there was no possibility of any resolution through negotiations.
When Mr Prasad and Mr Chaudhary pointed out that one of the three High Court judges, Justice D.V. Sharma, is due to retire on October 1, which might delay the case indefinitely, Justice Gokhale said that could be taken care of by the Centre.
Mr Prasad argued that the better course left for the SC was to hear the case in detail when it comes before it in appeal after the High Court verdict as that would give it a “wider spectrum” to deal with the entire issue.