LD AYODHYA 2 LST

Today's order was preceded by 45 minutes of arguments
with Justice Raveendran and Justice Gokhale voicing divergent
views on the postponement plea.
At the outset, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing
for Tripathi, submitted that if the judgement was not deferred
it could lead to serious crisis in India which he said was
already plagued by Jammu and Kashmir crisis in north India,
flood situation in different parts of country and the upcoming
Commonwealth Games.
The argument failed to convince Justice Raveendran,
who shot back, "Is that the ground for postponment of a
judgement. For 50 years you have not been able to solve.
Please see the order (High Court) hundreds of opportunities
were given to you."
However, senior advocate and the opposition Bhartiya
Janata Party spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad, appearing for
Dharamdas and another senior counsel Anup George Chaudhary who
was arguing for Sunni Wakf Board, said several efforts were
made to arrive at settlement without success.
"This is the problem," both the parties contended,
adding, "it is not possible and it was recorded in the order
of the High Court.
At one stage, Prasad submitted that Tripathi was not a
serious contestant in the dispute and did not bother to appear
before the Allahabad High Court in northern India during the
90 days of hearing.
Responding to this argument, Justice Gokhale said, "He
may not be a party before the court. They may be ordinary
people. It is the ordinary people who are always the sufferer.
All that he is saying is let us give a trial".
Justice Raveendran said, "One way or the other it will
have to be decided. Why do you think people are so immature.
Why do you assume that the people in this country are so
immature?"
"Religious passion will rise if people raise it. If
people don't raise it, it will not rise".
Justice Raveendran said,"If you are able to persuade
one of the parties to the dispute to support your stand, we
could have considered it".
Rohatgi said one of the parties to the dispute Nirmohi
Akhara was supporting the stand.
However, Justice Raveendran said, "It should not be a
publicity exercise. What were you doing all these days?"
Prasad and Chaudhary strongly opposed any deferment
of the Allahabad High Court judgement saying Tripathi was not
a serious contestant in the dispute.
Justice Raveendran quipped, "So both of you are on the
same side, why not atleast sit with him (Tripathi) and try to
sort out". (MORE) PTI