New Delhi:
Attorney General G E Vahanvati has said since 1999, the stand of the Union Government on the Ayodhya case has been for settlement that has not taken place.
"We would like a resolution of the matter one way or the other. We cannot keep the law and order machinery in sustained animation," he said.
The AG 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 also referred to the verdict of the Constitutional bench on the land acquisition at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
He refuted the allegations of Ramesh Chand Tripathi's counsel Mukul Rohatgi that the Centre sat meekly and only stood as a receiver of the disputed land. Tripathi had sought that the verdict be deferred and the matter be settled through reconciliation.
He 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 attempt 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 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 to a certain extent recommendations can be made by the apex court collegium.
"We would like a resolution of the matter one way or the other. We cannot keep the law and order machinery in sustained animation," he said.
The AG 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 also referred to the verdict of the Constitutional bench on the land acquisition at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
He refuted the allegations of Ramesh Chand Tripathi's counsel Mukul Rohatgi that the Centre sat meekly and only stood as a receiver of the disputed land. Tripathi had sought that the verdict be deferred and the matter be settled through reconciliation.
He 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 attempt 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 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 to a certain extent recommendations can be made by the apex court collegium.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
