In a precedent setting decision, the Supreme Court, yesterday decided to defer the Ayodhya verdict by a week. The next date of hearing will be on September 28, the coming Tuesday. In the mean time the apex court has also directed the Allahabad High Court to not pass any directions or orders pertaining to the case.

The Indian Express details what went on within the walls of the apex court.The SC bench consisting of Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale passed this surprising order based on an appeal file by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi who said that there is a chance of an out of court settlement. While Justice Raveendran was strongly opposed to the deferment terming the plea as a publicity stunt, Justice Gokhale took a more liberal view and said, “If there is one per cent chance, you have to give it (for settlement)".

Senior Counsel, Mukul Rohatgi arguing on behalf of Tripathi argued in favour of the deferment saying, “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.” 

IBNlive reports that even though the decision was deferred citing hope for reconciliation, the lawyers for the main opposing parties have given statements that are contrary.

Ram Janambhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri called the court's stay order as "disheartening". “We were ready for the judgement, whichever way it went. I think some politicians did not want this judgement to come out. This has hurt us. This is a very disheartening judgement. All parties were ready for whatever judgement would be coming," said Ranjana.

Sunni Central Waqf Board lawyer said there is no hope for reconciliation in the matter. "If they want to wait for the verdict for some more days, that's fine with us. I am not all disappointed. I have been arguing in this court for 24 years. We are hoping that matter comes up on 28th. There is no hope for reconciliation," said Sunni Central Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani.

One of the arguments against the deferment was the impending retirement of Justice D.V. Sharma who is on the 3 member bench at the Allahabad High Court who is due to retire on October 1. Justice Gokhale though brushed aside the argument and said there are enough constitutional safeguards to take care of such eventualities.

The Hindustan Times reports that legal experts said there are options within the legal framework to retain one of the retiring judges in the three judge bench. They said if the Supreme Court interim stay stands beyond September 28, there is a constitutional provision to retain the judge, D. V. Sharma who retires this month-end by appointing him as an ad hoc judge till he signs the judgement.

In order to avoid dissenting opinion in future, the SC is expected to appoint a larger bench to avoid a similar situation. Senior Counsel, K.K. Venugopal has said, "There are all likelihood that the CJI will constitute a three-member bench to avoid the situation like today when there was a split of opinion between the two judges. The three judges will decide the issue on Tuesday giving sufficient time to the High Court to deliver the verdict before the retirement of one of its judges."

Till then all eyes will be on the apex court’s next step.