New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday favoured an out-of-court settlement of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute thro-ugh mediation between Hindu and Muslim parties which will be monitored by the court.
A five-judge Constitut-ion bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, while giving this suggestion, said it would consider passing appropriate orders in this regard on March 6.
Justice Bobde observed, “We may decide a property dispute but we are thinking more about healing relationships. The mediation, if done, would be confidential and court-monitored. The Ayodhya dispute was “much more” than a mere property dispute. It has dragged on for decades. Mediation may result in the permanent resolution of the disp-ute. Even if there is one per cent chance of amicable resolution, it should be given a try. And the mediation will be concurrent to the suit pending before the court. We are seriously considering this option. Mediation will be a confidential process too.”
The CJI told senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan “You as well as anyone know that this is not just a dispute over title to a property. It is not a dispute over a private property, but the public right to worship... There has not been mediation at any point of time in this case. That is why we are seriously considering this alternative dispute resolution mechanism under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code.”
The CJI observed in the order that a court-monitored mediation, if ordered, would be done with the“utmost confidentiality”. The mediation would confront issues raised before the court in the appeals.
The CJI said since eight weeks’ time is being granted to verify the accuracy and relevance of the translation of documents done by the UP governme-nt, this period may be utilised for mediation under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. The CJI also expressed the hope that mediation may spell a peaceful end to the title dispute between two faiths over the land where the Babri Masjid once stood before it was demolished by kar sevaks on December 6, 1992
The Muslim groups represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave and Raju Ramachandran expressed their willingness for mediation, if the court directed such a course.
However, Mr Vaidy-anathan for the deity Lord Ram and senior counsel Ranjit Kumar for some Hindu groups opposed mediation on the ground that it had not yielded the desired results earlier.
Mr Vaiyanathan pointed out that the Kanchi Sankaracharya tried mediation but could not succeed.
However, senior counsel Sushil Kumar Jain for Nirmohi Akhara agreed to the mediation.
The court will pass orders on next Wednesday on whether the contentious issue should be referred to a court-appointed mediator.
The parties were directed by the Court to examine the records and point out their objections. At the outset, the CJI made it clear that the hearing will commence only if parties accept the translations prepared by the UP Government as authentic.
At the outset Mr. Dhavan said, “We need to examine the authenticity of the translation. We want to begin the arguments but we have to satisfy with the translation. Mr. Dhawan submitted that there may have been some “exchanges” in the past, but those necessarily did not mount to discussions on the accuracy of the translations.”
But Mr. Vaidyanathan protested that Mr. Dhawan, appearing for appellant M. Siddique, is trying to delay hearing of the appeals. He said several orders had been passed by the apex court as way back as in 2015, giving opportunity to Mr. Dhawan’s side to examine the State’s translations and report back. “For all these years, they did nothing and now they raise objections,” he added.
The CJI told the counsel that the court does not intend to wait indefinitely to hear the appeals. “We will not waste our time over your dispute about the authenticity of the translations. It was necessary to reach a consensus on the authenticity of the translations so that no controversy would be raised later that would derail the proceedings in the appeals” he said and granted eight weeks for verification process to be completed.
