The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

NEWS AND VIEWS

PUNJAB

HARYANA

JAMMU & KASHMIR

HIMACHAL

REGIONAL BRIEFS

NATION

OPINIONS

LETTERS

BUSINESS

SPORTS

WORLD

SPECIAL COVERAGE

CHANDIGARH

LUDHIANA

DELHI

THE TRIBUNE SPECIALS

50 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

TERCENTENARY CELEBRATIONS

M A I N N E W S

No deferment of Ayodhya decision
Verdict to come on September 24: Allahabad HC
Shahira Naim/TNS

Lucknow, September 17
The three applications requesting the deferment of decision in the long awaited Babri Masjid title suit were today rejected with costs by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. With today’s categorical decision of the three-judge division bench, it is now certain that the verdict would indeed be delivered exactly a week from today — on September 24.

Taking a serious view of the ill-prepared attempt to postpone the decision, the court ordered the first applicant, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, to bear the court costs of an unspecified amount.

While the official court order would be available only tomorrow, the lawyers of various parties, speaking to the media outside the High Court premises, said the judges had asked one of the applicants — Tripathi — if any of the parties had shown any inclination for a dialogue. His application was rejected when he could not answer that question.

According to Hindu Mahasabha lawyer Hari Shankar Jain when the lawyers of both the parties stated that they were not agreeable to a deferment at this stage, the court dismissed the application on the grounds of not having any merit.

On September 13 one of the judges of the division bench, Justice Dharamveer Sharma who is due to retire later this month, had admitted three separate applications for deferment.

This is a right decision. There was an unnecessary attempt to delay the verdict and put impediments in the judicial process. — RSS spokesman, Ram Madhav

"The judgment on the Ayodhya dispute should be accepted by all in deference to the judicial process. — CPM general secretary, Prakash Karat

Applicant to bear court costs
Taking a serious view of the ill-prepared attempt to postpone the judgment, the court has ordered the first applicant, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, to bear the court costs of an unspecified amount.

Plea seeking deferment of Ayodhya verdict quashed
Legal luminaries hail Allahabad HC order

New Delhi, September 17
Welcoming Allahabad High Court order rejecting a plea for deferment of the judgment in the Ayodhya case, leading lawyers today expressed the hope that all sides to the dispute would abide by the verdict and 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 judgment.

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 maintain 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 are 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. — PTI