New Delhi: Just days after BJP’s sweeping victory in Uttar Pradesh and Yogi Adityanath taking over as the state’s new chief minister, the Ram Mandir issue is back on the national centrestage. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court suggested an out-of-court settlement of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute at Ayodhya. Observing that the sensitive religious issue of the Babri Masjid land dispute involved faith, it said it must be sorted out via talks between the parties. The Supreme Court indicated that one of its judges could be spared, if necessary, to mediate between the parties.
Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar, sitting with Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, himself offered to mediate between the parties. The CJI told BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who sought early hearing of the appeals: “These are not issues which can be sorted out in a huff. Why don’t you (counsels) sit and sort it out? Sit across, give a bit here, take a bit there?”
Wasting no time, Hindutva hardliners Giriraj Singh and Uma Bharti, both Union ministers, pressed for building of a “magnificent Ram temple” at the disputed site, while the Babri Masjid Action Committee and AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi ruled out an out-of-court settlement. The BJP and the RSS “welcomed” the suggestion, while the Congress adopted a cautious line, saying: “There should either be a consensus-based solution, which will go a long way in ensuring lasting peace and goodwill, or the Supreme Court should adjudicate the case on merit.”
Earlier, seeking an early hearing, Dr Swamy told the bench: “This is an issue of great public interest. It has been pending in this court for six years. We should be heard. If we can prove that there was a pre-existing temple there (at the disputed site), the land should be handed over to us. The other side is claiming the land by adverse possession. This is a matter of faith.”
The CJI said: “We will hear this soon after the summer vacation, as soon as we have three new judges. But why don’t you sit across a table and sort it out?” Dr Swamy said he had already spoken to all parties and tried this. The CJI, however, rejected his submission, saying they must try again.
The CJI then offered any sitting judge to mediate between the parties. “If you want any sitting judge to sit between, we can give you one. You can have me. Or you can have my brother (Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul)... We will not then hear the case later. You need a moderator to sit in-between because there are tough issues to sort out. But this is the best way to sort such issues out. Speak to them again. Any sitting judge of your choice. Take whoever. These are issues of religion, involving sentiments. Sit across the board and settle.”
Dr Swamy said: “This will require some judicial intervention. Your lordships can direct all parties to sit together. The issue can be sorted out if the Muslims agree to build a mosque across the Sarayu river.” The CJI said he could only suggest this way forward.
Dr Swamy said it would not possible for both sides to sit together without some judicial intervention. The CJI then asked Dr Swamy to mention the matter again on March 31 so that a suitable order can be passed. In 2010, the Supreme Court admitted petitions challenging the verdict of the Allahabad high court on September 30, 2010 dividing the disputed site in Ayodhya into three parts, and directed them to be given to the parties to the civil dispute.
Union minister Giriraj Singh, known for his strident approach, said: “All parties should take the initiative now. Lord Ram is at the centre of faith of crores of Hindus. Muslims should also come forward, let there evolve a cordial atmosphere.” He then added: “Will the temple be built in Pakistan or Bangladesh, if not in India? I am confident the minorities will take the issue forward in a cordial manner.”
Saffron sanyasin Uma Bharti said: “There can’t be a bigger gift than this. We should arrive at a solution that will be remembered for thousands of years.” Ms Bharti, one of the accused in the Babri demolition case, wanted a “huge Ram temple be built at the site on the lines of the Somnath temple in Gujarat”.
Ruling out an out-of-court settlement, the Babri Masjid Action Committee said it was open only to mediation by the Chief Justice of India himself. “We have faith if the CJI himself mediates or nominates a team of Supreme Court judges or the court itself hears the matter. But we are not willing to accept an out-of-court settlement,” Babri Masjid Action Committee convener Zafaryab Jilani said. Taking a similar line, Mr Owisis tweeted: “Please remember, Babri Masjid case is about title, which the Allahabad high court wrongly decided as a partnership case. Hence the appeal in the apex court.”
In its appeal, the Waqf Board assailed the high court judgment, contending that the suit was decided on the basis of belief/faith of a section of the Hindu community for which there was no admissible evidence. The high court had wrongly held that a temple existed at the site in dispute before the construction of the Babri Masjid, while there was no evidence to prove the existence of any such temple or demolition thereof in or around 1528 AD. It argued that the claims of Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara over the disputed site were mutually exclusive and could not be shared.
The All India Hindu Mahasabha sought endorsement of the September 30, 2010 minority verdict by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, who favoured handing over of the entire land to the Hindus. It said: “The judgment by Justice S.U. Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal should be set aside to the extent that one-third of the property in dispute has been declared in favour of Muslims and to allot the share to them.”
