BJP says SC decision has ended uncertainty, appeals for calm
BJP on Tues said the SC decision not to the defer Ayodhya case verdict has ended uncertainty & appealed to the people to maintain peace & calm.
New Delhi: The BJP on Tuesday said the Supreme Court decision not to the defer the Ayodhya case verdict has ended the uncertainty on the issue and appealed to the people
to maintain peace and calm.
"We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. It has cleared the uncertainty that was there in the country," BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar said. He refused to speak on what BJP expects would be the verdict of the High Court in the Ayodhya title suits.
"We will wait for the judgement to come and then react. We are not expecting or anticipating anything... I cannot pre-judge the judgement," Javadekar said. The party also appealed to the people to maintain law and order.
"There is a legal process ahead also (after the title suit verdict of HC). We appeal to the people to maintain peace and calm in the country and are hopeful they will do so," he
said. The senior leader maintained that he did not see a possibility of people breaking the law.
Another party spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said the party did not desire any legal delay on the issue and hence welcomed dismissal of the deferment plea. "We certainly welcome the Supreme Court decision. The party has already stated its position that it does not desire any legal delay and this verdict of the apex court has cleared the way for the verdict to be pronounced by the High Court," Sitharaman said.
BJP had held a meeting of its top brass last week and made a public statement that judicial delays of the last 61 years had prevented construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya.
It had also expressed the hope that there would be no further legal delay in the case. Javadekar said the party did not intend to hold any meeting on on Tuesday`s verdict of the Supreme Court and will decide the future course of action after the High Court judgement.
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
"This has been the view of the Centre and this is my view also," he said. "Settlement, if there is any possibility, we welcome it but we do not want any uncertainty," the AG said. Since 1999, the stand of the Union 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 have 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. 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.