Babri issue: Legal luminaries welcomes Allahabad high court decision

Welcoming Allahabad high court order rejecting a plea for deferment of the judgment in the Ayodhya case, leading lawyers today expressed the hope that that all sides to the dispute would abide by the verdict and not not incite passions.

They maintained that it was the job of courts to deliver verdicts though efforts could always be made for striking an amicable out-of-court settlement.,

Eminent counsel Harish Salve said the court's job was to give judgments and it was for the government to maintain law and order. He said he was surprised that efforts were being made to avoid a judgement.

Referring to an incident in the 1990s, when it was prayed before the Supreme Court that the case relating to Kalyan Singh in a contempt matter be adjourned because there was a BJP rally on a particular day, justice MN Venkatachaliah remarked the court will do its job and it was for the government to main law and order.

Senior advocate KK Venugopal said that it is the duty of the court to deliver the judgment irrespective of the consequences.

"The reasons given by those seeking deferment is that the judgment will result in creating law and order problem. Even after six months, the position will be the same. As one judge will be retiring, it will be the duty of the court to deliver its judgment," he said.

Lawyer KTS Tulsi said even at this late stage if it was possible to work out an amicable solution that could be attempted.

Former law minister and senior advocate Shanti Bhushan took strong exception to  efforts made by "vested interests" to defer the judgment and said that the high court had done the "right thing".

"The suit is pending for so many years. Why is anybody trying to delay it. It is unconscionable. Too many years have been passed by. This has to be decided much earlier. Now that the date is fixed, why should anybody try to defer the judgment? I can't appreciate it. The high court has done the right thing," Shanti Bhushan said.

While agreeing with Venugopal, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said there cannot be further adjournments over the issue and the judgment will have to be delivered on time.

"The Masjid judgment is long overdue. In any case, one of the judges retires at the end of the month. There can be no adjournment beyond that otherwise the whole issue has to be heard again. Court judgments have to be delivered on time," Dhavan said.

"Courts are not to be threatened that judgments should not be delivered because they will give rise to chaos," he added.

Earlier in the day, a 3-judge Special Bench of the high court rejected the petition filed by one Ramesh Chandra Tripathi for deferring  the judgment for working out an out-of-court amicable settlement of the issue.

The court rejected the application on the ground that there was no merit in it.

Tripathi, a defendant in the case, had filed the application for making another attempt to reach a solution to the dispute through reconciliation and deferment of the verdict.

Former attorney general Soli Sorabjee said he was not not able to understand apprehensions being expressed that there would be violence and communal discord after the verdict.

"In any case one side will win and the other lose. That does not not mean there will be riots.  Then what happens to rule of law in the country," he said.

He, however, said passions could be inflamed if a political party or group decides to stoke feelings on the issue.