NEW DELHI: Lawyers, journalists and those who were part of the 50-year-long legal battle over the disputed land at Ayodhya waited anxiously for 90 minutes in Court No. 12 in anticipation of the interim order a Supreme Court bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha was to pass on Monday.
The judges assembled at 11.35 am and as soon as the petitions challenging the September 30 Allahabad High Court judgment was called for hearing, every counsel wanted to be heard first. The bench called for discipline and said, "If you all speak at the same time, we cannot hear."
As the matter progressed and the bench made it clear that the HC judgment prima facie appeared incorrect, there was a divergence of opinion relating to the nature of interim order that needed to be passed by the apex court.
As the bench was mulling over it, senior advocates Ravi Shankar Prasad, Ranjit Kumar and P P Rao pointed to the two earlier judgments of the court stating that status quo be maintained at the disputed site as well as the surrounding land acquired by the central government.
All parties agreed for status quo. After staying the HC verdict and extracting the 1994 and 2002 SC judgments, the bench ordered, "We further proceed to direct parties to maintain status quo, recording with happiness that there is unanimity at least on this issue."
The judges assembled at 11.35 am and as soon as the petitions challenging the September 30 Allahabad High Court judgment was called for hearing, every counsel wanted to be heard first. The bench called for discipline and said, "If you all speak at the same time, we cannot hear."
As the matter progressed and the bench made it clear that the HC judgment prima facie appeared incorrect, there was a divergence of opinion relating to the nature of interim order that needed to be passed by the apex court.
As the bench was mulling over it, senior advocates Ravi Shankar Prasad, Ranjit Kumar and P P Rao pointed to the two earlier judgments of the court stating that status quo be maintained at the disputed site as well as the surrounding land acquired by the central government.
All parties agreed for status quo. After staying the HC verdict and extracting the 1994 and 2002 SC judgments, the bench ordered, "We further proceed to direct parties to maintain status quo, recording with happiness that there is unanimity at least on this issue."
No comments:
Post a Comment