ORDER

1. On January 7, 1993 the President of India promulgated an Ordinance to provide for the acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya specified in the schedule to the Ordinance. By Section 3 of the Ordinance, on the commencement thereof, the right, title and interest in relation to the said area stood transferred to, and vested-in, the Central Government. Section 4(3)provided that on the commencement of the Ordinance, any suit, appeal or other proceeding in respect of the right, title and interest relating to any property vested in the Central Government under Section 3, if pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, shall abate. By Section 5 the Central Government came to be empowered to take possession of the area vested in it under Section 3. Section 8 contemplated the payment of compensation to the owner or owners of the acquired property.

2. Simultaneously on the same day, the President, in exercise of power conferred under Article 143(1) of the Constitution referred the following question to this Court for its opinion:

"Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and other courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?"

The Presidential reference sets out the nature of dispute, the location of its area and the adverse consequences thereof and then proceeds to state that with a view to maintenance of public order and communal harmony in the country in the area vested in the Central Government by virtue of the acquisition, it is necessary to seek this Courts opinion on the question referred under Article 143(1). The Ordinance has since become an Act.

3. On receipt of the Presidential reference this Court gave detailed directions by its order dated January 27, 1993. In that order this Court pointed out that in its opinion it would be desirable to hear the preliminary objections at the threshold but realising the urgency of the matter we also gave directions inviting response on the merits of the reference. Thus by the said order we indicated that we will hear the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability, competence and desirability of answering the reference first in point of time.

4. After the issuance of the Ordinance it appears that in the pending suits renumbered O.O.S. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1989 the plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaints challenging the legality and validity of the Ordinance by which the suits abated. The Full Bench of the High Court heard the said applications and passed an order on March 15, 1993. By the said order the High Court framed the question whether the suit has abated or survives and since the said issue necessarily touched upon the validity of the Ordinance, the Court ordered notice to the Attorney General and listed the case for hearing of the issue on April 26, 1993. Although this order was passed in Suit O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, it was also to govern the amendment application in Suit O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989. It also appears that in the meantime as many as five Writ Petition Nos. 552, 925, 1351, 1532 and 1809 of 1993 came to be filed in the High Court challenging the validity of the Ordinance, now the Act. Besides these proceedings in the High Court a Writ Petition No. 208 of 1993 also came to be filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the very same law.

5. The question of maintainability of the reference involves the question of the legal and constitutional validity of the impugned law as well. This is evident from the objections raised by the Communist Party of India in LA. No. 2 of 1993. Therein it is contended that the said statute as well as the Presidential reference violate Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It was also disclosed in the said application that the party would be filing a separate petition under Article 32 to challenge the validity of the Ordina