Judgement day

With just a day left for the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court to deliver its verdict on the contentious issue of the title suits of the disputed site at Ayodhya, suspense over its outcome and anxiety over the possible fallout keep rising. The Supreme Court has kept open room for a possible hearing in the court on Thursday on a plea seeking to defer the HC verdict on the suits claiming ownership over the disputed site at Ayodhya. On Wednesday, the court was reluctant to take up a plea seeking that the verdict be put off. But the rising level of anxiety led the Centre to clamp a 72-hour country-wide ban on bulk SMSs and MMSs. With speculation over what the high court might decide reaching a feverish pitch, Union home minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday cautioned against drawing “any hasty conclusion”. Even Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, in an unusual intervention, issued an appeal, asking people to maintain peace and harmony. The growing wariness fuelled rumours about the resignation of one of the judges of the bench of the Allahabad High Court that is to pronounce the much-awaited verdict: a prospect that would require the matter to be heard afresh. On Wednesday, an SC Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and A K Patnaik did not seem very keen to hear a deferment plea filed by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, a defendant in one of the title suits before the HC. The Bench said that it would take it up in the afternoon after consulting the registry when the matter was mentioned in the morning by advocate Sunil Kumar Jain. But in the afternoon, the Bench, much to the disappointment of an anxious crowd of journalists, told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi that the division of work among Benches by the CJI barred them taking up the appeal relating to civil suits. “I have checked it with the registry. As the matter relates to civil suits, I do not have the determination to hear it,” Justice Kabir said indicating that the work allocation did not permit him to hear the appeal. But when Rohatgi persisted with his request for hearing, Justice Kabir said: “I would have had no hesitation to hear it if I had the determination permitting me to hear the matter.” When the counsel requested for listing before another Bench, Justice Kabir declined, saying he did not have the power to do so. But, he said that the registry will list it expeditiously. This means, Tripathi’s appeal could possibly find its place among the cases that would be listed for mentioning before various courts. If on Thursday Tripathy’s appeal yields no tangible result, then the HC would be without any judicial impediment to pronounce its verdict on Friday. The petitioner has cited possible law and order fall out from the verdict on the 59-year-old title suits as the primary reason for his request seeking to defer the HC judgment. “If this unfortunate fall out becomes a reality, then it would cause a massive dent to the country’s image at a time when it is preparing to host the Commonwealth Games,” he said.