New Delhi, Nov 3: The government could bring a law for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya even when the dispute is before the Supreme Court, as there have been instances of the court's decisions being scuttled legislative process, former Supreme Court judge Jasti Chelameswar said in Mumbai on Friday.
His comments came when the clamour for the enactment of a law to pave the way for construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya was growing within the Sangh parivar.
Justice (retired) Chelameswar was speaking at an interactive session hosted by the All India Professionals Congress, an organisation affiliated to the Congress party.
Earlier this year, Justice Chelameswar was among the four senior judges of the Supreme Court who went public with their objections about the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra's style of functioning.
When asked at Friday's programme whether Parliament can pass a law for Ram temple while the matter is in the Supreme Court, Chelameswar said it could happen.
"Legally if it can happen (or not) is one aspect. Whether it will happen (or not) is another. I'm aware of instances that happened in the past where decisions of the Supreme Court were scuttled by the legislative process," he said.
He cited the example where the Karnataka Assembly passed a law to overturn the SC order on the Cauvery water dispute, and another similar instance related to inter-state water dispute between Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana.
"The nation should have opened up to these things much earlier.... This (a law on Ram temple) is possible as we did not stop it then," he said.
Incidentally, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh said earlier Friday that Hindus were feeling "insulted" by the Supreme Court's declaration that the Ayodhya issue is not a priority and insisted that an ordinance would be needed if all options run out.
After a three-day RSS conclave in Maharashtra, its general secretary Bhaiyyaji Joshi said the organisation "will not hesitate to launch an agitation for Ram temple, if needed, but since the matter is in the Supreme Court, there are restrictions."