Ayodhya verdict deferment: It’s a shock for counsels on both sides

The Supreme Court (SC) order postponing the Allahabad high court’s Ayodhya verdict has come as a bolt from the blue for counsels on both sides. The advocates representing Hindu and Muslim interests in the matter are also unanimous that no amicable solution is possible now.

Mahant Bhaskar Das, who represents Nirmohi Akhada, the oldest petitioner in the case, and Hashim Ansari, 90, the oldest surviving party in the matter, rejected the idea of reconciliation.

“I don’t want the verdict from a panchayat… I want a high court order,” Ansari said.

“The high court should have been allowed to pronounce its judgment… we have waited for 60 years,” a visibly crestfallen Das said.

“When no mutually acceptable solution could be reached in the last 60 years, there is no reason now to believe it can be arrived at in seven days,” Zafaryab Jilani, counsel for Sunni Central Waqf Board, said.

“I don’t know what to say… I am deeply disappointed and frustrated,” Ranjana Agnihotri, counsel for Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, said.

“All parties involved have refused to have anything to do with the reconciliation process… I don’t know what can be achieved in this extended period of seven days… personally, I don’t see any scope for reconciliation,” Hari Shanker Jain, another counsel for the mahasabha, said.

Counsels on both sides also agreed that there was “some one” behind Tripathi’s petition. “He [Tripathi] is an insignificant person… he didn’t come even once to any of the hearings held over 90 days… someone else is behind him,” Jilani said.

Ranjana went to the extent of calling Tripathi a man of “unsound mind”. During the recording of his statement in 2005, she said, Tripathi had admitted his memory was failing him and that he was unable to concentrate on facts and events.

“Relying on such a person for reconciliation of such an important matter is out of the question,” Ranjana said.