"I Was Only Giving My Own Interpretation"

Did the government ask him to seek permission for the bhumi puja? 
"I was only giving my own interpretation of the 1994 judgementregarding status quo to the Supreme Court on a specific query from the Bench. Noaffidavit or written submissions were filed on behalf of the government. It wasafter the petitioner's counsel had concluded his submissions and after the courtasked me, I submitted that temporary use of the undisputed adjacent land for abrief duration for the purpose of performing puja was not per seprohibited. I also felt that the puja would not violate the status quoorder passed by the Supreme Court, which was referable to the disputed site andnot the undisputed site."

"The Attorney-General, or for that matter any law officer, is notbriefed or directed by the government as to what legal submissions he has tomake; it is left to his judgment and discretion. And that is what I did. I wasnot airing anyone's view - neither of the government nor that of Vishwa HinduParishad (VHP). Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had told me that I shouldargue the matter as the law permitted me to, and then leave the rest to theSupreme Court."

"Naturally, as Attorney-General, the government cannot disown the views Igave before the Supreme Court. But I was not briefed nor told to make thesubmission regarding the restrictions to be imposed, if at all the Supreme Courtwere to permit the symbolic puja. No self-respecting Attorney-Generalwill seek instructions about how the matter should be argued in the court."

Had he conferred with law minister Arun Jaitley prior to making his plea?
"With Arun Jaitley, I did discuss the possible interpretations of the 1994status quo order of the Supreme Court. But the government had left the line ofargument to be adopted before the Court entirely to me. The government had nottaken a decision on it and it was of the view that the matter is before theCourt and it should wait for the Court's order."

The conditions under which the puja could be permitted, as was arguedby him?
"Even if the puja is not prohibited because of any previousjudgment or order of the Supreme Court, it could be permitted to proceed onlyunder well-defined conditions and restrictions. These would include the locationof the puja, the duration of the puja, the number of persons to beallowed to enter the premises and conduct the puja and the restrictionson the ingress and egress of kar sevaks or Ram sevaks who would bethere to witness the puja."

Why did he feel that this would be possible without any untoward incidentdeveloping? 
"VHP counsel Rama Jois was sitting next to me and I had enquired from himas to how many people would be involved in this. However, I had categoricallymade it clear to him that whether the VHP liked it or not, I am going to suggestimposition of stringent conditions and restrictions on holding of such puja.Under the guise of performing the puja, no construction activity of anykind would have been permitted, and nor would stones have been permitted to bebrought in to the site of the puja."

On what the Muslim community could make of his plea
"I can understand the apprehension of the Muslim community in the light ofsome actions in the past, but their rights would not have been impaired. Asizeable number of the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) and the PAC(Provincial Armed Constabulary) were deployed at the site, and they weredeployed only to take care of any law and order situation that may arise."

Only an interim order
"The Supreme Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench for properinterpretation of the application of the status quo order to the undisputed land.The order is there for everyone to obey. The government, the VHP, everyone, isbound to obey the judgment. Every party should accept the judicial verdictwhether they like it or not."