Supreme Court sends Ayodhya case for mediation by a 3-man team

New Delhi: Searching for an amicable and lasting solution to the decades-old politically sensitive Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, the Supreme Court on Friday referred the matter for in-camera mediation by a three-member panel headed by Justice F.M. I. Kalifulla, a retired judge of the highest court, within eight weeks, by when the Lok Sabha poll process will be nearly complete.

Spiritual guru and Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate from Madras high court Sriram Panchu, who is a mediation expert, are the other two members in the panel. Incidentally all the three hail from Tamil Nadu.

A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bode, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer passed this order to facilitate an out-of-court settlement to the more than seven-decade-old dispute. It gave liberty to the panel to co-opt other members if they feel to do so.

The court asked the panel to hold “in-camera” proceedings and restrained the media from printing or telecasting the mediation proceedings.

The bench said it does not find any “legal impediment” to make a reference to mediation for a possible settlement of the dispute.

The mediation process will commence within a week and the panel will submit a progress report within four weeks, the top court said.

The bench was hearing a batch of 13 appeals against an Allahabad high court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit relating to the disputed site in Ayodhya, granting two-third of the land to Hindus and one-third to Muslims of the total of 2.77 acres of land. While the Hindus claimed that the one-third land granted to Muslims should be restored to them, the Muslims claimed that the two-third land given to Hindus should be transferred to them.

The bench directed that the mediation will be held at Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh and all arrangements regarding venue, stay of members and conduct of mediation should be made by the Uttar Pradesh government.

The court said, “The mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentiality so as to ensure its success which can only be safeguarded by directing that the proceedings of mediation and the views expressed therein by any of the parties, including the learned mediators, shall be kept confidential and shall not be revealed to any other person.”

“While the mediation proceedings are being carried out, there ought not to be any reporting of the said proceedings either in the print or in the electronic media. However, we refrain from passing any specific order at this stage and instead empower the mediators to pass necessary orders in writing, if so required, to restrain publication of the details of the mediation proceedings,” the court said.

The court said it was resorting to mediation notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter for mediation. 

It said considering the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, “we do not find any legal impediment to making a reference to mediation for a possible settlement of the dispute(s) arising out of the appeals. Whether the said provisions of the CPC would apply in the event parties arrive at a settlement/compromise in the mediation proceedings is a matter left open to be decided at the appropriate stage.”

The court said mediation proceedings would be completed within eight weeks which is the interregnum period granted earlier by the top court to the parties in main Ayodhya case to go through translations of oral and documentary evidences.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad high court judgment.

Those who filed the appeals included the Sunni Central Waqf Board, UP; the Nirmohi Akhara; the All-India Hindu Mahasabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman.

There are voluminous records, scripts and documents in seven languages, Sanskrit, Pali, Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Punjabi and Urdu, which are to be translated into English.

On behalf of the Hindus it was argued that having accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, there was no reason why one-third land was to be given to Muslims for construction of a mosque. They wanted that the entire area be granted to the Hindus to facilitate construction of Ram Mandir.

The appeal on behalf of Muslims raised several questions including whether the myth, belief or faith could be substituted by history for the purposes of application of law for the time being in force? Whether in view of the fact that devotees of Lord Ram demolished the building during the pendency of their suit, relief could be granted to such a plaintiff.

On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished.