SC- 3RD LD AYODHYA 2

Vahanvati said the most preferred solution to the
Ayodhya problem would be settlement but it has not taken place
and the uncertainty which is prevailing should not be allowed
to continue.
"This has been the view of the Centre and this is my
view also," he said.
"Settlement, if there is any possiblity, we welcome it
but we do not want any uncertainty," the AG said.
Since 1999, the stand of the Indian Government has been
for settlement which has not taken place, he said.
"We would like a resolution of the matter in one way or
the other. We cannot keep the law and order machinery in
sustained animation," Vahanvati said.
Counsels pleading for deferment of the verdict said the
court and the government could try innovative approach to
evolve an out-of-court settlement.
However, counsels for all the parties to the dispute
except Nirmohi Akhara opposed the plea for deferment.
They said judicial function cannot be made a hostage
to the negative consequences which has been cited by Tripathi.
Amplifying his arguments, Vahanvati said, "My position
is very clear. I am of the view for implementation of the
decision of the suit. This is what we have to do as per the
mandate of 1994".
Vahanvati said this while making a reference to the
verdict of the Constitutional bench on the land acquisition at
the disputed site in Ayodhya in north India.
He refuted the allegations of senior advocate Mukul
Rohatgi, who was appearing for Tripathi, that the Centre sat
meekly and only stood as a receiver of the disputed land.
Vahanvati said the Government was committed to maintain
the rule of law and was under obligation of the undertaking
given by it to the apex court on September 14, 1994 that it
will make attempts to resolve the issue through continuous
negotiations.
The Attorney General also countered the allegations of
Rohatgi that it was not "pro-active" in attempting to resolve
the dispute through settlement and process of negotiation.
He said government believed in respecting the rule of
law. He also countered the argument that the tenure of one of
the retiring judges could be extended as the Centre has no
power in this regard, which is vested with the Chief Justice
of the High Court and only to a certain extent recommendations
can be made by the apex court collegium. PTI