Rediff India Abroad
 Rediff India Abroad Home  |  All the sections


The Web

India Abroad

Sign up today!

Article Tools
Email this article
Top emailed links
Print this article
Contact the editors
Discuss this article
Home > News > The Ayodhya Issue > Report

SC reserves verdict in Ayodhya case

March 06, 2003 16:42 IST

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the Centre's plea for vacating the status quo order on the undisputed land in Ayodhya.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Kirit Raval submitted before a bench comprising justices S Rajendra Babu, S S Quadri, M B Shah, N Santosh Hegde and Doraisami Raju that the 67 acres of undisputed land could be returned to the rightful owner.

The 1994 judgment envisaged status quo only on the 2.77 acres of disputed area, he said.

Therefore, last year's order ran counter to the 1994 judgment, he pleaded.

Raval said that the government was duty bound to preserve the secular fabric of the country, but at the same time it could not ignore the repeated requests of the Hindus for utilisation of undisputed land for religious purposes.

Raval said the Muslims should not take a rigid stand and ask for continuance of the status quo order, which had exceeded the 1994 judgment.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said for ten years status quo had been maintained both on the disputed as well as the undisputed land.

To alter the status quo, there had to be a substantial change in circumstance, he said.

He said the disputed and undisputed land was acquired under the Acquisition of Certain Areas in Ayodhya Act, 1993. This was done to facilitate proper access to the disputed site after the title suits were decided by the Allahabad high court.

He said till the Allahabad high court decided the title suit, the character of no area -- disputed or undisputed -- could be changed.

However, Raval stated that the disposal of the title suits had no bearing on the undisputed land as the status quo in the 1994 judgment pertained only to the disputed area.

He said the Centre was committed to maintain status quo in the disputed area till the title suits were decided.

At this point, the bench said, "Similar status quo assurances were given to the court, but what happened to them?"

Former UP chief minister Kalyan Singh had assured the apex court in 1992 that status quo would be maintained at the disputed site.

However, the same was not observed and the Babri mosque was demolished.

Raval said according to the 1994 judgment, the Centre would vest the undisputed land with other bodies.

To honour this aspect, the status quo order passed on March 13 and 14 last year should be vacated, he said.

He said the petition filed last year was for a specific purpose -- that during the puja ceremony at Ayodhya, law and order situation should not be affected.

There was no such situation now at Ayodhya and the petition had become infructuous, he said.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Wakf Board, senior advocate Siddharth Shankar Ray said that the status quo order should continue till the disposal of the title suits.

He said the situation in Ayodhya was very volatile and vacation of status quo would amount to 'putting a matchstick on gunpowder'.

Additional Solicitor General R N Trivedi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, supported the Centre's plea for vacation of the status quo order.


The Ayodhya Issue: The Complete Coverage

Share your comments

 What do you think about the story?

Read what others have to say:

Number of User Comments: 6

Sub: RE:IT looks Raval was representing VHP

the advise by th Solicitor General in the course of his arguements before the SC is precisely to seek its Orders. Let us not critise ...

Posted by n.s.prakasam

Sub: IT looks Raval was representing VHP

Raval was speeking on behalf of VHP, he need not suggest what stand muslims should take on this issue. Centre should put off his fake ...

Posted by aqeel

Sub: court reserves verdict in ayodhya case

At the outset I'm of the strong view that court has no jurisdiction over religious matters.More over temple at all costs has to be built ...

Posted by ranganathan

Sub: Sc reserves verdict in Ayodhya case

As the plea pertains to undisputed site, the supreme court should order release of the same to the owners. It is a pity that in ...

Posted by R.Balasundaram

Sub: Share your views

What is use in sharing our vies with the when it is neither diplayed nor read by other netizens.Certainly our views are not meant ...

Posted by Akhtar



Copyright 2005 India Limited. All Rights Reserved.