Ayodhya Verdict: SC rejects deferment plea; Allahabad HC to go ahead and pronounce verdict

Bar & Bench News Network

Sep 28, 2010

The Supreme Court has rejected the deferment plea in the Ayodhya title suit.  A 3 member bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, S.H. Kapadia and consisting of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan announced that the three-judge Allahabad High Court bench could go ahead with the pronouncement of judgement.

 

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati, who was told to be present by the SC, had said the most preferred solution to the problem would be settlement but it has not taken place and the uncertainty which is prevailing should not be allowed to continue. 

 

The hearing started at 10:30 this morning with the special leave petition of retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi being represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who had argued for deferment of the verdict in order for the parties to the suit to reach a settlement.

 

The 3 member bench is now free to pronounce the judgement. Though the apex court has not set a date for the lower court to pronounce the verdict, the HC bench is expected to give the verdict within the next 2 days due to the impending retirement of a judge on the bench, Justice D.V. Sharma, who is due to retire on October 1, 2010.

 

Even with the impending retirement, Justice Gokhale had made it clear in the last hearing saying that there are constitutional safeguards regarding this scenario. The retiring judge can be allowed to stay on as an ad hoc judge or his judgement could be pronounced by the successor judge.

 

Last week, a 2 member bench of the SC consisting of Justice Raveendran and Justice Gokhale had heard Tripathi’s plea regarding deferment and even though Justice Raveendran was not in favour of deferring the plea, Justice Gokhale had expressed his opinion that even if there was a small chance of settlement, the court should allow the parties to explore that option.

 

Tripathi had sought postponement citing that the State and the Central governments were not ready to deal with the possible law and order ramifications of the verdict due to the Commonwealth Games and Uttar Pradesh floods.

 

In today’s hearing though, it was made clear by all the parties to the suit that a settlement was not possible and that Tripathi was not a serious party to the suit who had not attended the hearings at the Allahabad Bench on a regular basis.

 

Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, who appeared for one of the parties said, "Judicial function cannot be made hostage to consequences".

 

 

 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter

Comments(6)
  • 1. "Sir,Good decison by the Apex Court. Mr.Soli Sorabjee is right in saying that "Judicial function cannot be made hostage to consequences". At least now after decades of hearing, the judgement should be delivered.By J.Venkat, Chennai". J.Venkat, Chennai
  • 2. "People at large depend on the judgement of the Supreme Court. ". SK ZAKIR HOSSAIN, KOLKATA
  • 3. "THANKS we are living in an era where courts are accused of inordinate delay in dispossal of cases. When these kinds of petiotions are moved to scuttle the delivery of judgements the same should be delt accordingly. More over it is worth enquiring as to whose instance the petition is filed.". Adv T.Rajesh, Kochi
  • 4. "Amidst the much awaited verdict of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits being deferred for the time being courtesy the Supreme Court of India so as to give one more chance towards exploring the possibility of a amicable settlement of this hyper-sensitive issue, we, as citizens of secular India ought to rise above religious lines and instead vow that irrespective of judicial pronouncement of the matter, a commerorative national monument would be constructed on the land in question which would be more memorable than one of seven wonders of the world, Taj Mahal, so as to give a clear signal to our neighbouring country in particular and entire world in general that our communal harmony can't be disturbed just for a piece of worship. By doing so, we would be moving beyond US Presdient Barrack Obama’s plan of favouring construction of a mosque near “Ground Zero”, the place of devastating 9/11 in New York". HEMANT KUMAR ADVOCATE, AMBALA CITY HARYANA
  • 5. "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly rejected the plea of deferment in Ayodhya title suit. The decision is highly appreciable.By this verdict judiciary has become very strong. ". Vishnu Behari Tewari Advocate Allahabad High Court, 5/7 Alkapuri Near Circuit House Nyaya Marg Allahabad
  • 6. "Justice delay is justice denied, such things have been happend here , court decied matter on the basis of evidence and one should I accept the decision of court.". Ashraf Fakih, Mumbai
Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?

bullets

 

May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the  comments (2)

 

 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.