Courts normally dont entertain deferment of verdicts
The Ayodhya verdict will be out on Thursday at 3.30 PM with the Supreme Court giving the go ahead today. Legal experts feel that although this case is extra ordinary in nature and the Supreme Court could have interefered under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, it is the delay factor in this particular case which prompted it not to entertain the petition.
Justice N Sathosh Hegde says that law and order is a ground that can be cited before the Supreme Court of India, but litigants must realize that the courts do not have the infrastructure to maintain law and order and it is entirely the duty of the state and the union governments.
There have been instances in the past when the Supreme Court has refused to give a hearing when law and order problems were cited. In both the Cauvery Waters case and also the Mandal case, the same ground was cited and in both instances the Supreme Court was very clear on the role of the government. In the Cauvery waters case, when Karnataka had suggested that releasing water to Tamil Nadu would create a law and order problem, the court had told the Chief Minister to either rule or quit. The situation was similar in the Mandal case with the Supreme Court telling the government to do its job in protecting law and order and letting the Supreme Court its job in passing an order.
Justice Hegde says that in the Ayodhya case, there is every chance of a law and order problem, but an order has to be pronounced and it cannot be kept in the cold storage forever. The Supreme Court while passing todays order was clear that the petitioner had a long time to seek such a settlement. The Bench headed by the Chief Justice asked the petitioner as to why he had taken so long to wake up and also added that this should have been done a long time ago. It reaches a maximum limit in some cases and the Supreme Court does take into account the delay factor and also says that the onus on maintaining law and order is entirely upon the governments and if they are unable to do so then they are a failure.
Justice Hegde also points out that in pleas seeking deferment of reserved orders, the Supreme Court normally does not interfere. When it is its own order it may take a call but normally does not interfere in verdicts of other courts unless it is an extraordinary situation in larger public interest. The Supreme Court would have set an unwanted precedent had it deferred the verdict since it would have become a matter routine before it.
SC gives green signal to pronounce Ayodhya verdict
A last ditch attempt to settle the Ayodhya verdict out of court was rejected by the Supreme Court of India which gave the green signal to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to go ahead and pronounce the verdict which has been reserved for almost two weeks.
Prashanth Chandra, senior Counsel for Ramesh Chandra Tripathi who argued the case before the High Court told rediff.com that all attempts to mediate the matter out of court have come to an end with the verdict of the Supreme Court. There is nothing more we can do now in this case and we too will wait for the verdict of the High Court. However we hope that the people will maintain calm and realize that the verdict of the High Court is not the final one since one of the aggrieved parties is sure to move the Supreme Court after this verdict.
He said that a date for the pronouncement of the final verdict by the High Court will either be fixed today in the evening or by tomorrow. It would depend on when the parties are able to get certified copies of the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Over the past few days several attempts were made to settle the matter out of court. There were many persons who had come forward to sort out this issue, but a majority of the parties to the title suit preferred a verdict. Moreover the Government of India too made it clear that it wanted no uncertainity on the matter.
The ball currently is in the court of the state administration of Uttar Pradesh and it is up to it to maintain calm following the verdict.
Meanwhile security in Uttar Pradesh continues to remain tight. Security was put in place when the High Court had first fixed a date for the verdict. The High Court remains a fortress with 140 sub inspectors, 800 constables, 200 reserve police force and 104 head constables guarding the building. The Nepal border continues to remain sealed since there are specific IB inputs that persons across the border may try to cross over and create trouble taking advantage of the situation.
SC rejects plea to defer verdict on Ayodhya case
With the Supreme Court rejecting the plea to defer the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, it is the Special Bench of the High Court which will fix a date to pronounce the verdict.
The legal team of the Waqf Board told rediff.com that the verdict of the Supreme Court will now be communicated to the High Court based on which the date for the verdict will be fixed. They say that once they get a certified copy of the order they will make it available to the Lucknow Bench and a date for the pronouncement of orders will be fixed tomorrow itself.
The litigants to the title suit will communicate this order to the Special Bench of the High Court by evening today and seek a date for the pronouncement of the verdict. They are now awaiting a copy of the order following which they will make the same available to the Lucknow Bench.
In addition to this a communication from the Supreme Court too would go to the High Court informing about this verdict.
Both parties to the litigation will urge the High Court to fix a date soon. They say that the matter has to be pronounced by 11 AM on October 1 since one of the Judges on the Special Bench, Justice D Sharma will retire at that time.
It is now the prerogative of the Bench which heard the title suit to fix a date for the verdict, legal experts say.
No comments:
Post a Comment