ORDER

1. On January 7, 1993, the President of India, in exeercise of powers conferred on him under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India, referred the following question to this Court for its consideration and opinion, viz. :

"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 outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood ?"

Upon receipt of the said reference, the Registry of this Court gave notice to the learned Attorney General of India as required by Rule 1 of Order XXXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, to appear before the Court on January 12, 1993, to take directions from the Court under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXVII of the said rules. Directions of the Court were sought on the following points :

"1. The parties who shall be served with the notice reference and the mode of service.

2. The date of entering appearance by the parties and filing of statement of facts and arguments on their behalf.

3. The date of hearing of the reference."

Directions were also sought as to whether notices may be issued to the Advocates-General of all States.

2. The reference came up for directions before a Bench comprising two of us (Venkatachaliah and Ray, JJ.) on January 12, 1993 when after hearing the learned Attorney General, Mr. Milon Banerjee, Mr. R. K. Garg, Senior Counsel who sought leave of the Court to raise a preliminary objection to the reference on behalf of the U.P. Sunni Wakf Board, Plaintiffs in Transferred suit No. OS 4/89 of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench and Mr. O. P. Sharma, Senior Counsel for one Mohd. Aslam at Bhure, original petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 972 and 977 of 1991 in the High Court, wherein, it was stated, questions related eat the one under reference were raised. Mr. Gargs preliminary objection was that the reference was invalid and could not at all be made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. The Bench did not deem it proper at that stage to consider the preliminary objection but directed notices to issue to (1) the State of U.P. (ii) the Advocate-General of the State of U.P. and (iii) the Union of India. A direction was also given that the matter be placed before a Bench of five judges for consideration of the matter, including the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Garg. Accordingly the matter was placed before this Bench on January 21, 1993.

3. When the reference was called on for hearing before this Bench it was noticed from the Registrys Office Report of the previous day i.e., January 20, 1993, that one Mr. N. Safaya, a practicing advocate of the Delhi High Court, had filed an intervention application through M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., advocates, raising an objection to the Court answering the reference for reasons set out in the application. We heard Senior Counsel Mr. Duda in support of the intervention application. Mr. R. K. Garg also stated that he too would like to make submissions on behalf of the Communist Party of India to pint out that such a reference is not maintainable and propriety demands that this Court should refuse to answer it. Mr. O. P. Sharma desired that the parties to the original proceedings in the High Court which have abated by the thrust of Section 4(3) of the acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993, should be served with notices.

4. The learned Attorney General invited our attention to the procedure which this Court had followed while dealing with the Presidential reference concerning the Special Courts Bill, 1978 ((1979 \) 1 SCC 380, 396-97 : 1979 2 SCR 476, 496 -97) and submitted that we follow the same procedure. In that case besides issuing notices to the Union of India, notices were issued to the Advocates-General of 22 States and public notices were issued in newspapers. He also said that there would be no objection to notices being issued to the parties in the proceedings which stood